Calcutta High Court: In a writ petition challenging the jurisdiction and authority of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner to treat a jute mill owned by the petitioner as an unexempted establishment citing changes in ownership, a single-judge bench comprising of Raja Basu Chowdhury,* J., ruled in favor of the petitioner, emphasising the continued validity of the exemption granted in 1960 and rejecting the automatic revocation based on changes in ownership. The Court sets aside the demand for compliance as an unexempted establishment, allowing the appropriate Government to reconsider the exemption in changed circumstances.
Factual Matrix
In the instant matter, the petitioner challenged the jurisdiction of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner to treat petitioner’s jute mill as an unexempted establishment under the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (the Act).
The petitioner, a private company, owns two jute mills, originally part of the Anglo India Jute Mills Company Limited. A trust was created in 1951 relating to the provident fund of the mills, with effect from 1949. In 1960, the Government of West Bengal exempted the mills from the Act’s provisions through a notification. The mills were assigned separate code numbers. Ownership changed over the years, and in 2016, the petitioner acquired one of the mills, the Middle Mill, claiming no provident fund dues at the time.
Legal Issue
The Provident Fund Authorities insist that the petitioner comply as an unexempted establishment, citing changes in ownership and introducing a new clause, Clause 29, Appendix-A, paragraph 27AA, in the Employees’ Provident Fund Scheme. On the other hand, the petitioner contended that, once granted, the exemption under Section 17 of the Act, the same persists until cancelled by the appropriate Government.
Parties’ Contentions
Petitioner: Exemption was granted in 1960, and no subsequent cancellation occurred. The Provident Fund Authorities cannot demand compliance as an unexempted establishment. The petitioner cites relevant judgments supporting its position.
Respondents: Changes in ownership trigger the applicability of the new clause, Clause 29, introduced in 2001. The exemption, originally granted to the Anglo India Jute Mills, is not applicable to individual mills under new ownership.
Court’s Assessment
The Court noted the history of exemption granted to the mills by the Government of West Bengal in 1960. The Court observed that the Provident Fund Authorities relied on the new clause introduced in 2001 to assert the automatic cancellation of the exemption.
The Court referred to previous judgments, particularly the Caledonian Jute & Industries Ltd. v. Union of India, 2018 SCC OnLine Cal 3462, where the Court accepted that the exemption, once granted, doesn’t automatically terminate unless explicitly cancelled or amended by the appropriate Government and concluded that the statutory scheme’s amendment cannot override the exemption granted.
The Court rejected the contention that the new clause automatically cancels the exemption. The Court upheld the petitioner’s argument that, without cancellation or amendment by the appropriate Government under Section 17, the new clause cannot override the exemption.
Court’s Decision
The Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, affirming the persistence of the exemption until cancelled by the appropriate Government. The Court sets aside the Provident Fund Authorities’ demand for compliance as an unexempted establishment. The Court, however, allowed the appropriate Government to reconsider the exemption in changed circumstances.
[Anglo India Jute & Textile Industries (P) Ltd. v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-I, 2023 SCC OnLine Cal 4954, order dated 12-12-2023]
*Judgment by Justice Raja Basu Chowdhury
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. Shyamal Sarkar, Sr. Adv., Mr. Atish Ghosh, Ms. Antara Dey, Counsel for the Petitioners
Mr. Satyendra Agarwal, Mr. Bijoy Bag, Counsel for the Respondent 1
Mr. Ravi Kumar Dubey, Counsel for the Respondent 4
