Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2012 (1) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (1) TMI 319 - SC - Indian LawsWhether the employer of an establishment which is an ‘exempted establishment’ under the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 is subject to the provisions of Section 14B of the said Act whereby in cases of default in the payment of contribution to the provident fund, proceedings for recovery of damages can be initiated against the employer of such an ‘exempted establishment’? Held that:- Section 14B is attracted where an ‘employer’ makes a default in the payment of any contribution to the fund. In the instant case admittedly default has taken place. We hold if there is a default in payment of contribution to such a scheme it amounts to contravention of Section 14B and damages can be levied. The High Court, with great respect, erred by coming to a contrary conclusion. High Court’s interpretation of the expression "so far as may be" as limiting the ambit and width of Section 17(1A)(a) of the Act, in our judgment, cannot be accepted for two reasons as well. The High Court is guided in the interpretation of the word "so far as may be" on the basis of the principle that statutes does not waste words. The High Court has also relied on the interpretation given to "so far as may be" in the case of Dr. Pratap Singh and another v. Director of Enforcement, Foreign Exchange Regulation Act and others reported in AIR 1985 SC 989. It goes without saying that Foreign Exchange Regulation Act is a fiscal statute dealing with penal provisions whereas the aforesaid expression is to be construed in this Act which is eminently a social welfare legislation. Therefore, the parameters of interpretation cannot be the same. In the instant case, the High Court failed to discern the correct principle of interpretation of a social welfare legislation. High Court missed this well settled principle of interpretation of social welfare legislation while construing the expression "so far as may be" in interpreting the provision of Section 17 (1A)(a) of the Act and unduly restricted its application to the employer of an exempted establishment. We hold that in a case of default by the employer by an exempted establishment, in making its contribution to the Provident Fund Section 14B of the Act will be applicable.
|