Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
M/S. MURUGAN TALKIES
DATE OF JUDGMENT12/12/1995
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
HANSARIA B.L. (J)
CITATION:
1996 SCC (1) 504 JT 1995 (9) 633
1995 SCALE (7)309
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment
of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court in W.P.
No.12533/86 dated November 24, 1994. The respondent and
others challenged the validity of Sections 24 and 25 of Cone
Workers and Cinema Theatre Workers (Regulation of
Employment) Act (50 of 1981) (for short ’the Act’) and the
notification of Government of India bearing No.35016 issued
by Ministry of Labour on April 30, 1986. The Division Bench
while upholding the validity of the Act has given relief to
the respondent to pay their share of the contribution w.e.f.
the date of judgment dated November 24, 1994.
The Union of India has filed this appeal. The
controversy is no longer res integra. This Court in District
Exhibitors Association Muzaffarnagar & Ors. v. Union of
India & Ors. [(1991) 3 SCC 119] upwells the validity of the
provisions and the rules. However, it was held that the
employer’s contribution should be made effective from the
date of the order setting aside the retrospective operation
of the notification. It can thus be concluded that from the
date of the notification the owners of the Cinema Theatre
are liable to contribute their share and also entitle to
deduct from the wages of the workmen towards their share of
provident fund and to have it credited to the account
maintained by the appropriate authority in that behalf.
It is contended for the respondents that the High Court
has granted the relief taking into consideration that some
workmen had retired and it would be inequitable to deduct
from the meagre wages of existing employees with
retrospective period. Therefore, the High Court directed
deduction of their share from the date of the judgment. It
is needless to mention that since some of the workmen have
already retired and from some existing workmen deduction
from date of enforcement of the notification would cause
great hardship to them, so it cannot be made to bear the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
burden of their contribution with retrospective effect from
the date of the notification towards their share of
contribution.
To that extent, the order of the High Court is upheld.
As regards the liability of the owners of the theaters who
approached the High Court, the operation of the notification
had stayed at their instance. We find that the High Court
was wholly unjustified in granting the same relief to these
owners/licencees. After their writ petitions were dismissed,
they were to bear the liability from the date of the
enforcement of the notification as held by this Court. It
is, therefore, necessary that from the date on which the
respective owners of the theaters or the licencees, who had
filed the writ petition in the High Court, are made liable
to deposit their share of contribution towards provident
fund account under the scheme.
We are issuing the order under Article 142 of the
Constitution. The order of the High Court to that extent is
set aside. The respondent and all the theaters owners are
directed to deposit their share of contribution to the
provident fund account from the respective dates on which
they filed the writ petitions in the High Court. The
appellants should intimate all of them the date on which
they had filed the writ petitions and call upon them to pay
their share of contribution.
The appeal is accordingly allowed to above extent. No
costs.