148

I
!
I ,,

-{ p.romote
~--·
the welfare of the people by securing and protecting, as effectively as il
•

can, a just social, political and economical order.

Thus various legislations like Employe•~s Provident Funds & Misc.
Provisions Act, 19~2, .ESI Act, Minimum Wages Act etc. have been enacted to
c01i1mit the Executive to the enshrined principles of social welfare. As laid down in
many a pronOLincement that 'these being _beneficial legislations, a construction
which fructifies the _legislative object and intent has to be preferred (Transport
Corporation of India velses ESIC AIR 2000 SC 238)': The intent of the Act as
worded in the title of the act ·forms the essence to the int_erpretation of a statute.
The· Employees' Provident Funds &: Misc. -Provisions· Act, 1952 is a
social piece of special legislation intended for long term _benefits for a particular
deprived class of citizens. It is· imperative upon us to give purposive interpretation
and thus has to be interpreted in accordance with the principles laid down by the
courts in a number of pi·onouncements as -laid dowll •in 'the matter of Nazeena
Trader~ Vis RPFC, 1,1.J 1996(1)334 (AP) (DB). The -Employees Provident Fund
& rv1isc. Provisions Act, 1952, being a social legislation, has to be construed
liberally so as:to confer upon the employ~es the benefits of provisions of,this
law to maxim um. Similarly, I am of the view .. that the spirit of legislation is
rellecled in the preceding lines has Lu be followed withoul, l~lil so that social aims
of our constitution are achi-eved. In construing the provisions of the Act, if two
views 8,e rensom1bly possible, the courts should r,r.efor the view which helps the.
achievement of the object though for such purpose the straining of the words to an
unreasonable degree is not proper. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner,
_Punjab v. Shibu Metal Workers-1965 (I) LLJ.473.
It was held by the two member bench of the Supreme Court that this
Scheme is for the welfare of the employees, and the same can not be held to be
violative of Lhe Constitution (Olis Uevator Employees' Union, Southern Region
and others v. Union of India and others-2003 "(99) FLR.1179 2004( l} Ll,,.L-4"1".+;......
. · .
• •
.
..
,',._pf\\
., r- Uf/r,• ·,,
---~
2004( I) LLN.450:2004 LLR 63 :2004 AIR. SC3264. Reference to the ?~ ~-~~~-~-- . _:;~~;;~.\
le::~ •(• ,!'. •: ,,:.\
· i'n
fr, I

~~~
~\
CJ .
t ·:., , } 1
1.,,.. ,40'
gj
(I)
,,.,.,. /,~;_/'I
\ •Jr'< lflli' (;{; , ~ :
 149

I I,,,;
II-!,.,..
. , 1
I

o\ the court in the·matter of ,JG Vaklrnria Vs HP'FC, LI.J 1957 (1)448 (Bum)
further strengthens this spirit. It.reads thus:·
"The act in hand is not a taxation. law, an<l si_nce it is a social legislation •
,·

and the cannon of construirig a ta~ation law, the courf must not countenance any
subterfuge which would defeat the provisi~nsof a socfal _legislation and the court
must if necessary strain the lPnguuge of the Act in order to achieve the purpose
.which the legislature had in placing this legislation on the statute book. Therefore,
not only the court must disapprove all such subterfuges to . defeat a social
legislation but m·ust actively try to prevent such subterfuges sticceeding in their
object."
In S,ayaji Mills Versus RPFC (1985 (1) LIJ 238 the court went on to
state that 'The act has to be so construed as to advance the,object with which it has
been enacted and any construction which would facilitate evasion of the provisions
of the Employees Provident Funds & Misc. Provisions Act, 1952 should, as far as
possible, be avoided.
The judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of FCI Vs RPFC
& others (1990)1 SCC 68-laid down that the identity of the workmen was a pre-
requisite to the a~sessment of dues and that,cor1fractors should also be summoned .
. The above principle, therefore, becomes saci:)sanct. In the present case also, the
FCI, Mandi Ladhuka Distt.ferozepur ha·s placed great rnliance on the above order,
so 8S to create an impression of analogous situation. ·The facts born on record;
however, woul'cl prnve that Lhe fa..:ts ofprescnl case me subslantively di!Tcrcn. l'ro111
those before the Hon 'ble Supreme Court in case above and thus as a coral lary there
is no analogy between the two. In the case above, it was essentially a case of
identity blind mathematieal assessment ofcdues whic~· did not find. favour with
Hon'ble Supreme Court as no evidence was c_ollected or appreciated to establish
the identity of the v..orkmen.
As the above assessment would have ultimately failed to apporti%J~e--~-
,:";,e(\ - a ,·,',
recovered amount into the accounts of individual workmen in the abs/4~f~~---o~~\
~~1'/}''
'ctJ ,,.,.,l,;I
-,,. '~1p1
,(I,.~.\ IJ\

- - ~ ;-,,
~c:
·rn
,v;.J -,~.• "'""~
~ o)
- ~,/
•' ,.~ ,-~
~~·.~1/ :1/1>,
\)"' '\U(l'I y I{
;, ,, -- , i
 • _1-- .
150

I I I •

i~~ntity of workmen, it was held as infinri by the Hon 'ble Supreme Court. In the .•--.
' ..•
·.1

present case, however, the identity ·of workers is k11own,

The FCI worker unior1 submitted on oath that-they were employed during
the period under questiciri Photo copie~ ·of some·· Identity Cards issued by ·•·.
. ' ~

concerned Co,ntractors duly countersigned by Assistant Man.ager FCI Mandi

Ladhuka have been submitted by FCJ Workers Union. FCJ Mandi Ladhuka District
Ferozepur has no where ~ontradicted the evidence in clear terms but has in abstract
manner sought to assail the same by saying that no relevant and material record
has been produced with regard to their eligibility as workers as also to prove their
service. The moot question.is if the record'allegccily
. .
SLJbmitted by the workmen as
evidence were indeed not relevant then why FCI not contradicted the same in black
and white rather ·than resorting to sweeping abstrnct denials of availability of
necessary records. Moreover FCI, even in denial mode, has questioned the value of
admission as insignificant to determine eligibility. What is therefore, implied in
this is that the evidence adducted by the worker~ is not sufficient to deterrnine
eligibility. Thus, one visible and direct inference of this is that these workers do
exist. Moreover what len_ds credence to the claims of workmen is that this very set
. . ..

of workers is continuing till how. That FCI hai/not cori,tradicted the same.
. .
In the 111atter of Altar Singh Verses The !'residing Officer, Lubour Court,
Hissar, (P&H)-2001 (4) SOT 273, the observations of-Hon 'ble Punjab & Haryana
1-ligh Court c1re worth q(1oting nnd since these rely on another judgment of I-Ion'ble
Supreme Court, the matter should rest on its st1Tngth. IL reads as unuer:-
I have heard the counsel for the parties at length. I am of the opinion that
the matter is squarely coveted by the judgment of this court in Gopal Krishanaji
Ketkar V. Mohammed Haji Latif and others, AIR 1968 SC 1413. In the aforesaid
judgment, it is categoric;all_y held that the pariy in possession of best evidence
. which would ti/row lighton the issue in controversy has to adduce evidence in the
Court. If the evi'dence is not· adduced, the- court' ought to. draw an adver-seI·. .(>irilt'eii°ii2p;:;,,,
·;,--- ~0
•

-
against him notwithstanding that onus of proof does not lie on him.
•
/(~4.~6~~r:~:'.'.'\f',.,,:,._
:;;~r
"Q?.-
"·"• '/;,
i·

• • •~ ; ~ . ic;~ ; f : I ' ; o•
• gC' ~
o.,,
.·,p~~
.,.o" : ...,
-
. ~ \.le .,.,vi101a- • I
~~ ..J ~
>~ l°:;"'··~-:-~('l\(.
: • -'. "fll,\(11 ·(