Bhakra Management Board Karamchari Sangh (Regd.) vs State of Punjab and Others

T.H.B. Chalapathi, J.—This Writ Petition has been filed for quashing the order of the Legal Adviser to the Government of India dated October 21, 1980, passed u/s 19-A of the Employees'' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'').

The petitioner is union of workers in Bhakhra Beas Management Board (Irrigation Wing) Nangal Township, The Board was having a carpentary shop during the period when Bhakhra dam was under construction. At that time, the employees working under the carpentary shop were covered by the Act. But after completion of this dam in 1960, the carpentary shop was closed and the workmen who were employed then, were retrenched. Thereafter, a small carpentary shop was established for maintenance work with effect from November 1, 1969, with twelve workmen. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner passed an order bringing the said shop within the provision of the Act with effect from November 1, 1969, though the number of persons working there, was less than twenty. Thereupon, a representation was made by the Board on July 26, 1978, to the Government of India u/s 19-A of the Act. The Legal Adviser of the Government of India exercising the powers, took the view that carpentary shop which was established in the year 1969 is only incidental to the main activity of the Bhakhra Beas Management Board to regulate the supply of water from the Bhakhra Nangal Project to the States of Haryana, Punjab, and Rajasthan, and, therefore, the said carpentary shop was not covered by the provisions of the Act. Accordingly, the order of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner was set aside.

Union of the workers field this writ petition for quashing the said order of the Legal Adviser to Government of India and also to direct the respondents to implement the provisions of the Act from 1969 to 1974 as the provisions of the Act were made applicable with effect from March 1, 1974. The only question to be decided in this writ petition is whether the workers can seek the implementation of the scheme under the Act for the purpose of recovering the employee''s contribution to the Provident Fund from 1969 to 1974. The Legal Adviser to the Government of India has taken the view that the carpentary shop which was established in the year 1969 is only incidental to the irrigation wing of the Board and, therefore, it is not covered by the provisions of the Act. Admittedly, during the period in question, there were less than twenty workmen working in the carpentary shop. Further, as observed by the Legal Adviser, the carpentary shop was constituted as an incidental activity for the purpose of the main activity of the Board (Irrigation Wing). There is no dispute that no deduction was made from the wages of the employees during the period from 1969 to 1974. None of the employees of the carpentary shop wanted to come within the provisions of the Scheme under the Act and no amount has been deducted towards their contribution towards the Provident Fund. Therefore, the employees cannot insist that they should be covered by the scheme under the Act and the management should be made to pay their contribution. The payment of contribution by the management will arise only if the scheme is applicable and if any deduction is made from the salary or wages of the employees. As already observed, the Act is not applicable as the workmen engaged in the establishment were less than twenty. Therefore, the carpentary shop under the management of the Board was outside the purview of Sub-section 3 of Section 1 of the Act. In this view of the matter, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the Legal Adviser to the Government of India. Writ petition is, therefore, liable to be dismissed.

Result is Writ Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.