TMI Blog1961 (2) TMI 98X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e New Pralhad Mills by the Amrit Banaspati and Co. Ltd., the accused, who were the principal officers of the company, became trustees of the Provident Fund of the New Pralhad Mills, which was transferred to the Amrit Banaspati and Co. Ltd. (3) The services of the complainant were for a time continued by the Amrit Banaspati and Co. Ltd. On 29h May 1957, however the complainant was informed that he was dismissed from service of the New Pralhad Mills as from 31st May 1957. (4) There is some dispute between the parties as to whether the complainant was, in fact, dismissed from service or whether his services were merely terminated. But that dispute is not really germane to the point for decision in this appeal, and we shall without prejudging the issue refer to is as a dismissal. (5) Consequent upon his dismissal, the complainant, on 28th March 1959, addressed a letter, through his attorneys, to the Trustees of the Amrit Banaspati Co. Ltd., who were holding the Employees' Provident Fund of the New Pralhad Mills. That letter is Ex. B. The complainant requested in that letter that he should be furnished with a statement of account of his Provident Fund Account, as the last s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ank's receipt for moneys or securities pertaining to his Provident Fund Account, is conferred upon him by the statute in the following words: An employee shall be entitled, on request made in this behalf to the company, or to the trustees referred to in sub-section (4) of Section 418, as the case may be, to see the Bank's receipt for any money or security such as is referred to in Ss. 417 and 418 . Section 420 merely prescribes the penalty against any officer of a company or any trustee of a provident fund who knowingly contravenes or authorises or permits the contravention of the provisions of sections 417, 418 and 419. (9a) Looking to the language used in Section 419, it would appear that the words of the section would ordinarily admit of no doubt or difficulty and that when the section uses the word employee , it means an employee. But Mr. P. P. Khambatta on behalf of the complainant has pressed for our consideration the purpose and object of the enactment as indicated not merely by the terms of sectiron 419, but also by the other sections 417 and 418. He has contended that the right given under section 419 is a right in aid of another and a larger right con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on as the employee asked for inspection. It was surely not the intention of the Legislature, it was contended, to bestow upon the employee so ephemeral a right. In support of the interpretation for which he contends Mr. Khambatta also relied upon the authority of a decision of the Supreme Court of India , Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Management of Dimakuchi Tea Estate. (11) The decision to which we have just referred undoubtedly laid down that the words of a statute, when there is doubt about their meaning are to be understood in the sense in which they best harmonise with the subject of the enactment and the object which the Legislature has in view. Their meaning is to be found not so much in a strictly grammatical or etymological propriety of language, nor even in its popular use, as in the subject or the occasion on which they are used, or the object to be attained. Their Lordships quoted with approval the passage from Maxwell's Interpretation of Statutes, 9th Edition page 55, to the effect that The words of a statute, when there is a doubt about their meaning are to be understood in the sense in which they best harmonise with the subject of the enactment and the o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... action, the contention advanced on behalf of the plaintiff in that case was that S. 35 merely referred to an employee and not an employee whose services had been terminated , as in the case of Wilkinson that therefore that section would be no bar to the plaintiff's suit. The contention was repelled and it was held that having regard to the provisions of that Statute even a person like Wilkinson whose services have been terminated would fall within the definition of the word employee as used in section 35. (13) Lord Justice Asquith pointed out that there were two definitions in that enactment, namely, the definition of the words contributory employee and that of the word employee . He held that a contributory employee was merely a species of the genus employee . He pointed out that a contributory employee was expressly so defined in section 3 of that Act as to include in it an ex-employee or a past employee. From that premise the learned Lords Justice reasoned that the other word employee used in the same statute could not but have a similar connotation. He stated the reasoning at pages 726-727 of the report as follows: I think, in the first place that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion. The attributes of an employee have been stated with clarity in Diamond's Law of Master and Servant, Second Edition, at pages 1 and 2. The word employee used in section 419 cannot in our opinion, in the absence of anything contained in the section itself, or in the statute, carry any higher or other meaning. It seems to us then that there is no doubt or difficulty here as to the interpretation of the word employee used in section 419 and, so it is not necessary to go back to a consideration of the scope and object of the legislation. (15) Mr. Khambatta also placed before us a number of anomalies which would arise if this interpretation were to be accepted. He pointed out that if the interpretation be correct, the moment the master chooses to give a notice to the employee terminating his contract of service, the right of inspection would be at an end yet his right to inspection would be at an end yet his right to receive his provident fund amount would subsist. There would therefore be no meaning in saying that the right of inspection is a right given only in aid of the larger right to the provident fund itself. The argument, is no doubt well taken but cannot affect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t controverted, that the employers in this case have not set apart the amount of the contribution of their employees, nor kept or deposited them in a special account, but that, on the other hand, the trustees have permitted the moneys and securities to be utilised by the company for its own purposes. In view of these allegations, when the matter came up before us at the last hearing on 10th February 1961, we had ordered the respondents 1 and 2, who were admittedly trustees of the Provident Fund, to file an affidavit stating whether the amount of the provident fund of its employees has been set apart in a separate account or not and whether it was separately invested or not and if invested, in what securities. We had also asked them to furnish a statement showing the date from which the provident fund amount had been kept apart and/or invested. While, no doubt, Mr. Amin had contended at the hearing that he was not in a position to state whether an affidavit would be filed or not, Mr. Shellim Samuel has stated before us today that in spite of an intimation to respondents Nos. 1 and 2, they do not intend to file such an affidavit. The refusal on the part of the respondents Nos. 1 and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
