Bachittar Singh vs K.S. Sethi and Others

J.S. Bedi, J.—The petitioner in this case is running a Snowhite dry-cleaning factory in Delhi. On 29-5-1963 he received a letter from Shri M.K. Gupta. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ''Commissioner''), telling him that the factory of the petitioner was covered by the provisions of Employees Provident Fund Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the scheme named there-under. A copy of that letter is marked Annexure ''A''. The petitioner sent a reply to the Commissioner abovementioned saying that his establishment was already having a scheme of provident fund under a compromise award made by the Industrial Tribunal, Delhi, in the year 1956, and he claimed exemption from the provisions of the said Act u/s 17. Some correspondence thereafter passed between the parties and then the Commissioner enquired from the petitioner ''whether his Trust was registered u/s 5 of the Indian Trusts Act. The petitioner informed the Commissioner in the negative. Soon thereafter the Commissioner filed four complaints against the petitioner u/s 14 of the Act for non-deposit of provident fund for five months from May 1963 to September 1963. On receipt of this notice the petitioner deposited the amount in the Reserve Bank. The petitioner was convicted in all the five cases and was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50/- in each case. The fine was, however, duly paid; The Commissioner then vide letter dated 2-6-1964 demanded from the petitioner, a sum of Rs. 330Q-02 nP.. as damages and administration charges for the said late deposit from 1st May, 1963, to February, 1964. The petitioner again objected to the said demand''. The respondent thereupon sent, a notice dated 17/20-7-64 to the petitioner threatening him that in case the amount was not paid the same will be recovered through the District Collection Officer as arrears of land revenue. The petitioner thereupon filed this writ in this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India alleging that the demand of respondent No. 1 abovementioned was totally wrongs incorrect without jurisdiction, against the principles of natural justice and arbitrary for which he gave a number of reasons under paragraph 8 of the petition and prayed that the respondents be restrained by grant of a writ of prohibition or any other appropriate writ from enforcing payment of Rs. 3300-02 nP. as damages and administration charges against the petitioner.

This petition came up before D. B. of Mehar Singh and Prem Chand Pandit, JJ. on 19-8-1994 when notice was issued to the respondent and a written statement was put in by them. On the 19th of October, 1964, the petitioner made an application in this Court praying that he may he permitted to amend his writ petition as by inadvertence he did not urge the ground therein that the petitioner''s establishment was not covered under the Act inasmuch the Notification GSR No. 561 of 23-3-1963 by the Ministry of Labour and Employment, Government of India, did not apply to this establishment and that he wanted to amend the writ petition accordingly. Notice was issued to the respondents. They have put in their objections against this application. The objection of the respondents is two-fold, firstly, that the provisions of Order 6, rule 17, and section 151, Civil Procedure Code, do not apply to these proceedings, and secondly, the amendment, in any case sought for by the petitioner is malafide and seeks to change the very basis of the claim raised in the original petition and therefore this application should be dismissed.

While hearing the arguments, the parties were heard at considerable length. Regarding the first objection taken by the respondents, the petitioner''s counsel cited Ryots of Garabanda and Others Vs. Zamindar of Parlakimedi, and C. Chenchanna Naidu Vs. Praja Seva Transports Ltd., Cuddappah and Another, It is clear from the above case that such writs are civil matters and the provisions of CPC do apply to them. In fact, this objection was not pressed by the respondents'' counsel thereafter. He, however, maintained that his second objection was substantial. Order 6, rule 17 of the CPC runs as under:

The Court may at any stage of the proceedings allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties.

The petitioner''s counsel cited Pirgonda Hongonda Patil Vs. Kalgonda Shidgonda Patil and Others, in which it is observed that:

All amendments ought to be allowed which satisfy the two conditions (a) of not working injustice to the other side; and (b) of being necessary for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties. Amendments; should be refused only where the other party cannot be placed in the same position as if the pleading had been originally correct, but the amendment would cause him an injury which could not be compensated in costs.

The real point in, controversy between the parties is whether the petitioner is liable to deposit provident fund amount under the Act and whether the provisions of the Act apply, to his establishment. It is true that in the petition he only referred to certain sections of the Act under which he claimed exemption and did not make any mention of the notification on which he wishes to rely upon. But the point in controversy between the parties still remains the same. The respondents'' counsel, submitted that the present petition of the petitioner may be dismissed and he be allowed to file a fresh petition. The writ petition has only been recently filed and if this amendment is not allowed it would only mean additional expenses to the parties and prolonging the matter. I, therefore, feel that the amendment should be allowed as prayed for. The petitioner is allowed to put in the amended writ petition within 15 days from today, a copy of which should be supplied to the counsel for the respondents, who will put in the written-statement within a fortnight. No order as to costs.