Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(b) determine the amount due from any employer under any provision of this Act, the Scheme or the Pension Scheme or the Insurance Scheme, as the case may be, and for any of the aforesaid purposes may conduct such inquiry as he may deem necessary."

The authorities referred to in the above Section are not only entitled to decide a dispute whether an establishment is covered under the Act or not, they also have to determine the amount due from any employer under the provisions of the Act. So far as dispute with regard to the employees, the eligibility to be covered under the Act, Section 7A is silent. Para 26B of the Scheme relates to such benefits extended to the employees. Chapter IV of the Scheme deals with various provisions pertaining to membership of the fund. Para 26 of the Scheme deals with different classes of employees who are entitled and required to join the fund. Para 26A of the Scheme refers to retention of membership by a member of the fund and Para 26B of the Scheme refers to resolution of doubts with regard to eligibility of membership to the employee. Para 26B of the Scheme reads as under:

"26B. Resolution of doubts.- If any question arises whether an employee is entitled or required to become or continue as a member, or as regards the date from which he is so entitled or required to become a member, the decision, thereon of the Regional Commissioner shall be final:
Provided that no decision shall be given unless both the employer and the employee have been heard."

Reading of Para 26B makes it clear that whenever a question arises pertaining to determination whether an employee is entitled or required to become or continue as a member of the fund and so also from what date the Commissioner has to determine such dispute, the decision of the Regional Commissioner is final. However, such decision cannot be made unless both the employer and employee are heard. According to learned Senior Counsel for the appellant-management, this determination under para 26B of the Scheme pre-supposes that a determination already in the offing so far as the relationship between the parties as contemplated under the I.D.Act. In other words, unless there is a finality to the controversy of relationship between the parties as contemplated under the I.D.Act, the Regional Commissioner cannot decide the eligibility of the member under the Act.

Though there is a reference to Factories Act under Section 7(e), there is no reference to I.D.Act either under Sections 2(e) or 2(f) of the Act. In the light of clear indications as to who is an 'employee' and who is an 'employer' under the Act under which the Regional Commissioner was discharging his duties in terms of para 26B of the Scheme, there would not be any impediment or embargo on the jurisdiction of the Regional Commissioner to determine whether a particular person or class of persons are falling within the definition of employee as defined under the Act itself. This is the exercise the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner has done under Ext.P7. With reference to various clauses of agreement and terms of employment between the parties, he determined the relationship between the parties. The jurisdiction or the power vested with the Regional Commissioner under para 26B of the Scheme shall include the power to determine the relationship between the parties as the very section contemplates 'Resolution of doubts'. If we read the entire Act including the Scheme, the purpose of this enactment was to create a welfare legislation regarding the contributions and the duty of the employer to extend benefit to the employees in the matters concerning the present Act. When a welfare legislation is brought in, particularly dealing with the benefits that could be extended to the employees, it is only to ensure financial security on retirement, compelling the employer also to contribute for such welfare fund under the Act. If the very purpose of the enactment was to be considered as the welfare legislation, definitely it could not have been the intention of the legislators to entrust the power of determination of relationship between the parties to a different authority under a different enactment and again come back to the welfare legislation where the entitlement to the membership has to be determined. Reading of para 26B of the Scheme or any other provisions of the Act, by no stretch of imagination, can be understood that the intention of the makers of this statute was to drive the parties to a different forum for determination of relationship and then come back to the forum constituted under this enactment. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion, Regional Provident Fund Commissioner who has to decide the entitlement or requirement or continuation of a member to the Provident Fund is also empowered to decide the relationship of employer and employee between the parties.

14. In the light of above observation, we have to restrict the order at Ext.P7 as an order only with regard to para 26B of the Scheme and so far as Section 7A determination, there has to be an enquiry as contemplated under sub-section (3) of Section 7A of the Act. We uphold the order in so far as it related to the determination under para 26B of the Scheme. With these observations, we dispose of the Writ Appeal directing the authority concerned under the Act to proceed with the enquiry contemplated under sub-section (3) of Section 7A. The authority shall determine the amount due from the employer under this enactment after giving an opportunity to both the parties. The entire exercise shall be completed within three months from today.