Shri Ram Krishna Dalmia vs Shri Justice S. R. Tendolkar & ... on 28 March, 1958
We find no substance in the contention of learned counsel that the provisos (1) and (2) are discriminatory inasmuch as the sum referred to in clause (b) is treated differently from the sums referred to in cls. (a), (c) and (d). There can be no doubt that Art. 14 cuts at the root of discrimination either by legislation or by administrative action. Though the rule of equality contained in Art. 14, prohibits class legislation, it permits classification. For permissible classification two conditions must be satisfied, viz., (i) it must be founded on intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from others left out of the group, and (ii) the differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the impugned Act. As long back as in 1958 the Supreme Court laid down the principle of permissible classification in Ram Krishna Dalmia vs. Justice S. R. Tendolkar, . There is indeed a reasonable classification between a sum dealt with in clause (b) and sum dealt with in cls. (a), (c) and (d). The subject-matter of the sum under clause (b) is the sum payable by the assessee as an employer by way of contribution. The employer who is in a dominant position deducts employees' contribution from the wages/pay at the time of disbursement and retains the amounts with him beyond the permissible period; further he is not discharging his obligation by paying the employer's contribution which ought to have been parted with by him to form the total contribution. Thus he is unauthorisedly retaining the total amount of contributions as employer. Such is not the position with reference to the sums which are the subject-matter of cls. (a), (c) and (d). This classification has nexus with the object sought to be achieved by provisos (1) and (2) to s. 43B and the Expln. to clause (va) of sub-s. (1) of s. 36 and that is to ensure strict compliance with the beneficial legislation dealing with workers' rights and benefits. Therefore, we find no discrimination as alleged.