REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONERversusTHE HOOGHLY MILLS CO. LTD. & ORS.

                     [2012] 1 S.C.R. 363


    REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER                               A
                                v.
         THE HOOGHLY MILLS CO. LTD. & ORS.
             (Civil Appeal No. 655 of 2012)

                      JANUARY 18, 2012
                                                                       B
  [ASOK KUMAR GANGULY AND T.S. THAKUR, JJ.]

    Employees' Provident fund and Miscellaneous
Provisions Act, 1952:
                                                                       c
     ss. 17(1 A)(a) and 14-B - Exempted estab/i<;hment -
Defaults in payment of contributions to the Fund - Power to
recover damages - Held: In a case of default by the employer
of an exempted establishment, in making its contribution to
the Provident fund, s. 148 of the Act will be applicable - ·If there   D
is a default in payment of contribution to the scheme, it
amounts to contravention of s. 14-B and damages can be
levied.

     Constitution of India, 1950:
                                                                       E
     Articles 226 and 136 - Writ petition filed without availing
of statutory remedy - Order of Regional Provident Fund
Commissioner challenged by exempted established in writ
petition - Held: Normally, the statutory remedy of appeal
should be availed of - However, in view of peculiar facts of the       F
case, it wou!d not be correct exercise of judicial discretion to
se nd the matter back to the remedy of appeal - Employees'
Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 - s. 71
- Appeal.
                                                                       G
      Interpretation of Statutes:

     Purposive construction - Socia/ Welfare legislation -
 Held: The normal canon of interpretation is that a social
 welfare legislation or a remedial statute receives liberal
                            363                                        H
    364     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2012] 1 S.C.R.


A construction and if there is any doubt, the same is resolved
    in favour of the class of persons for whose benefit the statute
    is enacted - Further, a purposive approach is to be adopted
    which promotes the purposes of the Act - Employees'
    Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1951 - ss.
s   14-B and 17(1A)(a).

         The respondent-Company was granted exemption
   from the provisions of the Employees Provident Fund
   and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 subject to the
   conditions mentioned in the exemption notification and
C the Explanation to sub-s. (1) of s.17 of the Act. As there
   were defaults on the part of the respondent-Company in
   making timely payment of dues towards the provident
   fund, proceedings were initiated against it and, ultimately,
  the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner directed the
D respondent-company to remit the specified amount by
  way of damages to the respective accounts, failing which
  further action as provided under the Act would be
   initiated. The respondent-Company without filing the
  statutory appeal u/s 71 of the Act, filed a writ petition
E before the High Court. The single Judge of the High
  Court allowed the writ petition holding that in view of the
  expression, "so far as may be" u/s 17(1A)(a) of the Act,
  the provisions in ss. 6, 7A, 8 and 14-8 could not be
  applied in their entirety. In appeal, the Division Bench of
F the High Court held that ss. 6,7A, 8 and 148 would not
  be attracted to the defaulting 'exempted establishment'.
  Aggrieved, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner
  filed the appeal.
        Allowing the appeal, the Court
G
       HELD: 1. Normally, the statutory remedy of appeal
  should be availed of in a situation like this. However, in
  the peculiar facts of the case and specially having regard
  to the nature of the proceedings, the impugned order
H having been passed in the year 2004 and thereafter the
REGIONAL P. F. COMMISSIONER v. HOOGHLY MILLS365
                  CO. LTD.
writ petition entertained by the two Benches of the High · A :
Court and after that the matter remained pending before
the Supreme Court, at this distance of time, to send the
matter back to the remedy of appeal would not be a
correct exercise of judicial discretion. [para 21] [378-C-E]
                                                           B
     2.1. The Employees' Provident Fund and
Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 is a social welfare
legislation and is one of the earliest Acts after the
Constitution came into existence. It effectuates the
economic message of the Constitution as articulated in C
the Directive Principles of State Policy. The normal canon
of interpretation is that a social welfare legislation or a
remedial statute receives liberal construction and if there
is any doubt, the same is resolved in favour of the class
of persons for whose benefit the statute is enacted.
(paras 22, 24 and 25] [378-F; 379-G; 380-8]                 D

   Regional Provident Fund Commissioner v. SD. College,
                                               =
Hoshiarpur and others 1996 (8) Suppl. SCR 27 (1997) 1
sec 241 - relied on
                                                            E
     2.2. The opening words of s.148 of the 1952 Act are,
"where an employer makes a default in the payment of
contribution to the fund". The object, as is evident from
the Objects and Reasons of Amending Act 37of1953 was
to remedy the defect. Similarly, s.17(1A), Clause (a), which F
makes s.148 applicable to an exempted establishment
also came by way of an amendment, namely, by
Amending Act 33 of 1988. The Statement of Objects and
Reasons of Act 33 of 1988 makes it clear that one of the
 objects of such amendment was to check the defaults on
 the part of the exempted establishments also. It is well G
 known that an interpretation which harmonizes with
 avowed object of the enactment is always to be accepted
 than the one which dilutes it. It is not uncommon to find
 legislature sometime using words by way of abundant
  caution. Therefore, the entire scheme of the Act is to be H
     366     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [20121 1 s.c.R:

 A considered at the time of interpretation. While construing
   the statute where there may be some doubt the court has
   to consider the statute as a whole - its design, its purpose
   and the remedy which it seeks to achieve. In the instant
   case, for construing the provisions of ss.148 and
 B 17(1A)(a), a purposive approach is to be adopted which
   promotes the purposes of the Act (paras 27-29, 35,37 and
   56] (380-A-B; E-H; 381-A-C; 382-G-H; 383-A-F; 388-G-H;
   389-A-B]

 C        S.C. Advocates-on-Record Association & Ors., v. Union
                                       =
     of India 1993 Suppl. (2) SCR 659 1993 (4) sec 441; and
     State of West Bengal v. Union of India 1964 SCR 371 =AIR
     1963 SC 1241 at 1245 - relied on

        Towne v. Eisner 245 US 418; l.R. Commissioner v.
 D Dowdall O'Mahoney & Co. (1952) 1 All E.R. 531; Re, Bidie
   (deceased), (1948) 2 All ER 995; Jones v. Wrotham Park
   Settled Estates (1980) AC 74; and Seaford Cowt Estates Ltd.
   v. Asher - (1949) 2 All E. R. 155 (CA) - referred to.

          Sixth Annual Benjamin N. Cardozo Lecture by
 E · Justice Felix Frankfurter, 47 Columbia Law Review 527
     (1947); "The Loom of Language" by Friedrich Bodmer;
     and Bennion on Statutory Interpretation (Fifth Edition) -
     referred to.

F        2.3. Section 17(1A)(a) provides that when an
    exemption has been granted to an establishment under
    Clause (a) of sub-s. (1), the provision of ss. 6, 7, 8 and 148
    of the Act shall, "so far as may be" apply to the employer
    of the exempted establishment in addition to such other
  G condition as may be specified in the notification granting
    such exemption. Sub-clause (a) of s.17(1A) is divided in
    two parts. The second part is more specific in as much
•.. as it has been clearly stated that where an employer·
    contravenes and makes default in compliance with any
  H of the said conditions and provisions or any other
REGIONAL P. F. COMMISSIONER v. HOOGHLY MILLS 367
                  CO. LTD.
provisions of the Act, (this would qbviously include A
s.148), he shall.be punishable u/s 14 as if the said.
establishment had not been exempted under clause (a).
Therefore, there is a deeming provision giving clear
indication of application of s. 148 of the Act to the
'employer' of an 'exempted establishment'. Thus, the B
sweep of the second part of clause (a) of s. 17(1A) which
is preceded by the word 'and' is very wide. Section 148 ·
              '
may also be considered   in this connection. Section 148 ·
is attracted where an 'employer' makes a default in the
 payment of any contribution to the fur.d. In the instant c
 case, admittedly default has taken place. [para 43-46)
 [385-8-G]

     2.4. The expression 'fund' has been defined u/s 2(h)
of the Act to mean the provident fund as established
under a Scheme. Though the word 'scheme' has been D
defined u/s 2(1) to mean the employees provident fund
scheme framed u/s 5, this Court in N.K. Jain has held that
the definition of the word 'fund' would apply to a scheme
operating in an establishment exempted u/s 17; and,
"consequently if there is a default in payment of the E
contribution to such a scheme it amounts to
contravention of s.6 punishable u/s 14(1A)". Following the
same parity of reasoning, it is held, if there is a default in
payment of contribution to such a scheme it amounts to
contravention of s.148 and damages can be levied. [para. F
47-48) [385-F-G]

   . N.K. Jain and others v. C.K. Shah and others 1991 (1)
SCR 938     =  (1991) 2 SCC 495; National Buildings
qonstruction Corporation v. Pritam Singh Gi/11973 (1) SCR     G
   =
40 (1972) 2 SCC 1; Surendra Kumar Berma and others v..
Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,
                                       =
New Delhi and Anr. 1981 (1) SCR 789 1980 (4) SCC 443
- relied rm              ·

     Knightsbridge Estates Trust Ltd. v: Byrne (1940) 2 All   H
    368       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2012] 1 S.C.R.


A E.R. 401 (Ch.D); and Prakash Cotton Mills (P) Ltd. v. State
  of Bombay (1957) 2 LLJ 490 - referred to.

        Dr. Pratap Singh and another v. Director of Enforcement,
    Foreign Exchange Regulation Act and others 1985 (3) SCR
B 969 =AIR 1985 SC 989 - distinguished.

          Dr. M. Ismail Faruqui etc. v. Union of India and others
    1994 (5) Suppl. SCR 1 =AIR 1995 SC 605 - held
    inapplicable.

c        2.5. It Is, therefore, held that in a case of default by
    the employer of an exempted establishment, in making
    its contribution to the Provident Fund, s.148 of the Act
    will be applicable. [para 58] [389-D]
                         Case Law Reference:
D
     1994 (5) Suppl. SCR 1        held inapplicable    para 10
                                                       and 55
     1996 (8) Suppl. SCR 27            relied on       para 22

E    1993 (2) Suppl. SCR 659           relied on       para 33
     245 us 418                        referred to     para 33
     1964 SCR 371                      relied on       para 35
     (1948) 2 All ER 995               referred to     Para 36
F
     (1980) AC 74                      referred to     para 38
     1991 (1) SCR 938                  relied on       para 39
     (1949) 2 All E.R. 155 (CA)        referred to     para 41
G
     (1940) 2 All E.R. 401 (Ch.D)      referred to     para 47
     1985 (3) SCR 969                  distinguished para 49
     (1957) 2 LLJ 490                  referred to.    Para 51
~
REGIONAL P. F. COMMISSIONER v. HOOGHLY MILLS369
                  CO. LTD.
 1981 (1) SCR 789                    relied on        para 53      A
 (1952) 1 All E.R. 531               referred to      Para 56
     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 655.
of 2012.
                                                                   B
    From the Judgment & Order dated 26.09.2008 of the High
Court at Calcutta in MAT No. 1944 of 2006.

    Aparna Bhat, Aruna Gupta for the Appellant.

     Pradeep Ghosh, Rana Mukherjee, lndranil Ghosh, C
Vikramjit Banerjit, Samiron Borkataky, Sudeshna Bagchi (for
Victor Moses & Associates) for the Respondent.

    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
                                                                   D
    GANGULY, J. 1. Leave granted.

     2. The question which falls for consideration before this
Court in this case is whether the employer of an establishment
which is an 'exempted establishment' under the Employees'
Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 E
(hereinafter, 'the Act') 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'.                                            F

     3. The question was raised by the respondent before the
High Court and both the Single Bench and the Division Bench
of the High Court have recorded a finding in favour of the
respondent and held that the respondent being an 'exempted G
establishment' cannot be subjected to the provisions of Section
14(B) of the Act.

     4. The material facts of case are not much in dispute.
                                                                    H
    370       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2012] 1 S.C.R.


A         5. By notification dated 23.11.1967, the Central
    Government in exercise of its power under Section 17(1) (a)
    of the Act granted exemption to the respondent, which is a
    company registered under the Companies Act subject to the
    provisions specified in Schedule II annexed to the said
B   notification. The material part of the said notification is as
    follows:

          "S.O. Whereas, in the opinion of the Central Government:

          (1) The Rules of the provident fund of the establishment
c         mentioned in Schedule I (hereto annexed and (hereinafter
          referred to as the said establishments), with the respect
          to the employees therein then those specified in section
          6 of the employees' Provident Fund Act, 1952 (10of1952);
          and
D
          (2) The Employees in the said establishments are also in
          enjoyment of other provident fund benefits which on the
          whole are not less favourable to the employees than the
          benefits provided under the Employees' Provident Funds
          Scheme 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the said School)
E
          in relation to the employees in any other establishment of
          a similar character.

                 Now, thereafter, in exercise of the powers conferred
          by clause (a) of sub-section (i) of section 17 of the
F         Employees' Provident Fund Act 1952 (19 of 1952), the
          Central Government, hereby exempt the said
          establishments with effect from dates mentioned against
          each of them, respectively from the operation of all the
          provisions oflhe said scheme, subject to the conditions
G         specified in scheme hereto annexed, which are in addition
          to the conditions mentioned in the explanation to sub-
          section ( 1) of the said section 17."

         6. The respondent company comes under Item No. 5 of
H   the notification. Initially the case of the respondent company is
REGIONAL P. F. COMMISSIONER v. HOOGHLY MILLS 371
     CO. LTD. [ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, J.]
that after the grant of exemption it framed a scheme and A
created a Trust and appointed a Board of Trustees from the
Management of the said Trust fund and was thus enjoying
exemption under Section 17(1A) (a) of the Act. It is also
common ground that there were defaults on the part of the
respondent company in making timely payment of dues towards B
provident fund for the period between October 1999 to October
2000 and then again from November 2000 to July 2002. In view
of such admitted defaults, proceedings were initiated against
the respondent company and by notices dated 10.9.2003 and
 11.10.2003 enclosing therewith the detailed statement of               c
delayed remittance of provident fund and allied dues. As
contemplated under Section 14(8) of the Act, respondent was
 offered an opportunity to represent their case on several dates
by the authorities under the Act and their case was listed for ·
 hearing but nobody appeared on their behalf on several dates. D
Thereafter, on the basis of some representation on their behalf
 the matter was heard and the Regional Provident Fund
 Commissioner II, Sikkim and Andaman & Nicobar Islands by
 a detailed order directed the respondent company to remit an
 amount of Rs.32,62, 153/- by way of damages to the respective
 accounts, failing which, it was stated that further action as E
 provided under the Act and the Schemes framed thereunder
 shall be initiated.

        7. It is not in dispute that the said order dated 9.6.2004 is
. an appealable order under the provisions of Section 71 of the         F
  Act. However, without filing any appeal the respondent company
  filed a writ petition before the learned Single Judge of the High
  Court which ultimately upheld the contention of the respondent
  company and, inter alia, came to following finding:
                                                                        G
      "Under such circumstances, this court holds that the
      impugned order cannot be sustained in law as the
      concerned authority demanded damages from the
      petitioners not only on account of delayed payment of
      contribution to the trust fund but also on account of delayed     H
    372       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 (2012] 1 S.C.R.


A         payment of the contribution to the pension fund and
          insurance fund.

                The impugned order, thus, stands set aside.
                The Provident Fund Authority may, however,
8         ascertain damages under Section 148 of the said Act
          afresh for delayed payment of contribution to the pension
          fund as well as the insurance fund.

               The writ petition, thus, stands allowed with the above
c         observation."

         8. The learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition
    proceeded on the basis that the expression "so far as may be"
    in Section 17(1A)(a) of the Act will have to be given its proper
    meaning. If such meaning is given then the provision in Sections
0
    6,.?A, 8 and 148 of the Act cannot be applied in their entirety.
    The learned Single Judge held that the expression "so far as
    may be" cannot be treated as a surplusage.

        9. The learned judge further held that the said expression
E "so far as may be" used in Section 17(1A)(a) of the said Act is
  for the purpose of restraining the application of provisions in
  Sections 6, 7A, 8 and 148 to the exempted establishment. The
  learned Judge also held that the damages which are
  recoverable under Section 148 of the said Act could not go to
F the hand of the individual affected employee. In case of delayed
  payment, loss of the individual affected employee is
  compensated by payment of interest under Section 7Q of the
  said Act. Since the damages which are recovered are not paid
  for compensating the losses of the individual employee, the
G expression "so far as may be" used in Section 17(1A)(a) of the
  said Act, does not require liberal interpretation. The said finding
  was given by the learned Single Judge in the context of the
  argument made on behalf of the appellant that the Act being
  social welfare legislation, needs to be liberally construed.
   REGIONAL P. F. COMMISSIONER v. HOOGHLY                      373
   MILLS CO. LTD. [ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, J.]
     10. The learned Judge ultimately accepted the meaning             A
of the expression "so far as may be" given by the Constitution
Bench of this Court in the case of Dr. M. Ismail Faruqui etc. v.
Union of India and others - AIR 1995 SC 605.

     11. Thereafter, an appeal was taken to the Division Bench         B
of the High Court by the appellant. The Appellate Court also
came to the conclusion that Sections 6, 7A, 8 and 14B of the
Act would not be attracted to the defaulting 'exempted
establishment'.

     12. In view of the fact that Section 17(1A)(a) makes it clear     C
that those Sections would be applicable "so far as may be",
the Appellate Court accepted the reasoning given by the Writ
Court and affirmed the judgment.

      1~- It is against such a concurrent finding and interpretation   D
of the aforesaid provision of the Act, we heard learned counsel
for the parties.

     14. For a proper appreciation on the point at issue, it
would be better to set out some of the relevant provisions of          E
the Act.

    15. Section 2(e) & 2(fff) define 'employer' and 'exempted
establishment'. Those definitions are as under:

     "2 (e) "employer" means-                                          F
     (i) in relation to an establishment which is a factory, the
     owner or occupier of the factory, including the agent of such
     owner or occupier, the legal representative of a deceased
     owner or occupier and, where a person has been named              G
     as a manager of the factory under clause (f) of sub-section
     (1) of section 7 of the Factories Act, 1948 ( 63 of 1948),
     the person so named; and

     (ii) in relation to any other establishment, the person who,
     or the authority which, has the ultimate control over the         H
    374       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2012) 1 S.C.R.


A         affairs of the establishment, and where the said affairs are
          entrusted to a manager, managing director or managing
          agent, such manager, managing director or managing
          agent;"

B         "2 (fff) "exempted establishmenf' means an establishment
          in respect of which an exemption has been granted under
          se;;tion 17 from the operation of all or any of the provisions
          of any Scheme or the Insurance Scheme, as the case may
          be, whether such exemption has been granted to the
c         establishment as such or to any person or class of persons
          employed therein."

         16. Section 14(8) of the Act which provides for recovery
    of damages reads as under:

D         "Section 148 - Power to recover damages - Whe.re an
          employer makes default in the payment of any contribution
          to the Fund, the Pension Fund or the Insurance Fund or in
          the transfer of accumulations required to be transferred by
          him under sub-section (2) of section 15 or sub-section (5)
E         of section 17 or in the payment of any charges payable
          under any other provision of this Act or of any Scheme or
          Insurance Scheme or under any of the conditions specified
          under section 17, the Central Provident Fund
          Commissioner or such other officer as may be authorised
F         by the Central Government, by notification in the Official
          Gazette, in this behalij may recover from the employer such
          damages, not exceedings the amount of arrears, as it may
          thinks fit to impose:

          Provided that before levying and recovering such damages,
G         the employer shall be given a reasonable opportunity of
          being heard:

          Provided further that the Central Board may reduce or
          waive the damages levied under this section in relation to
H         an establishment which is a sick industrial company and
REGIONAL P. F. COMMISSIONER v. HOOGHLY MILLS 375
     CO. LTD. [ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, J.]
   in respect of which a scheme for rehabilitation has been        A
   sanctioned by the Board for Industrial and Financial
   Reconstruction established under section 4 of the Sick
   Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (1 of
   1986), subject to such terms and conditions as may be
   specified in the Scheme."                                       B

    17. Section 17(1A) which deals with power to grant
exemption reads as under:

    "17 Power to exempt - (1) The appropriate Government
    may, by notification in the Official Gazette, and subject to · C
    such conditions as may be specified in the notification,
    exempt, whether prospectively or retrospectively, from the
    operation of all or any of the provisions of any Scheme.

    (a) any establishment to which this Act applies if, in the     D
    opinion of the appropriate Government, the rules of its
    provident fund with respect to the rates of contribution are
    not less favourable than those specified in Section 6 and
    the employees are also in enjoyment of other provident
    fund benefits which on the whole are not less favourable       E
    to the employees than the benefits provided under this Act
    or any Scheme in relation to the employees in any other
    establishment of a similar character; or

    (b) any establishment if the employees of such
    establishment are in enjoyment of benefits in the nature of    F
    provident fund, pension or gratuity and the appropriate
    Government is of opinion that such benefits, separately or
    jointly, are on the whole not less favourable to such
    employees than the benefits provided under this Act or any
    Scheme in relation to employees in any other                   G
    establishment of a similar character.

    Provided that no such exemption shall be made except
    after consultation with the Central Board which on such
    consultation shall forward its views on exemptions to the      H
    376       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  (2012] 1 S.C.R.


A         appropriate Government within such time limit as may be
          specified in the Scheme.

          (1A) Where an exemption has been granted to an
          establishment under Clause (a) of Sub-section (1 ),
B         (a) the provisions of Section 6, Section 7A, Section 8 and
          14B shall, so far as may be, apply to the employer of the
          exempted establishment in addition to such other
          conditions as may be specified in the notification granting
          such exemption, and where such employer contravenes,
c         or makes default in complying with any of the said
          provisions or conditions or any other provision of this Act,
          he shall be punishable under Section 14 as if the said
          establishment had not been exempted under the said
          Clause (a);
D
          (b) the employer shall establish a Board of Trustees for the
          administration of the provident fund consisting of such
          number of members as may be specified in the Scheme;

          (c) the terms and conditions of service of members of the
E
          Board of Trustees shall be such as may be specified in
          the Scheme;

          (d) the Board of Trustees constituted under Clause (b) shall

F
                 (i) maintain detailed accounts to show the
                 contributions credited, withdrawals made and
                 interest accrued in respect of each employee;
                 (ii) submit such returns to the Regional Provident
G
                 Fund Commissioner or any other officer as the
                 Central Government may direct from time to time;
                 (iii) invest the provident fund monies in accordance
                 with the directions issued by the Central
H                Government from time to time;
REGIONAL P. F. COMMISSIONER v. HOOGHLY MILLS 377
     CO. LTD. [ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, J.]
           (iv) transfer, where necessary, the provident fund        A
           account of any employee; and
            (v) perform such other duties as may be specified
            in the Scheme.

      18. Learned counsel for both the parties strenuously urged     B
before us that in this case we are only concerned with the
liability of the respondent company in so far as provident fund
is concerned. Mr. Prdeep Ghosh, learned senior counsel for the
respondent company has very fairly submitted that there are
three accounts, namely, provident fund contribution, pension         C
fund contribution and the Insurance fund contribution. The
respondent company does not enjoy any exemption in respect
of pension fund and insurance fund. Learned counsel further
submitted that Section 14B makes a distinction among these
three funds namely, provident fund contribution, pension fund        D
contribution and the insurance fund contribution.

     19. Ms. Aparna Bhat, learned counsel for the appellant
argued that both the Courts i.e. the writ court and the appellate
Bench of the High Court placed an erroneous interpretation with      E
regard to application of Section 14B to an 'exempted
establishmt.nt' by misconstruing the expression "so far as may
be". Learned counsel also submitted that while construing the
provisions of a social welfare legislation, like the Act, the High
Court has not given any reason why it should not follow the well     F
known principles of liberal interpretation.

     20. Learned counsel also urged that in the judgment of the
High Court there is no reason why despite the fact that there
exists an efficacious remedy of appeal, the writ petition by the
respondent company wa;> entertained. The High Court has G
come to a finding that the grievance of the respondent company
that it was not given adequate opportunity of hearing by the
statutory authority is not correct on facts. Therefore, the learned
counsel submitted that when an adequate opportunity of
                                                                    H
    378      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2012) 1 S.C.R.


A hearing was given, but the same was not availed of by the
  respondent company before the authority which passed the
  order dated 9.6.2004, it was not open to the respondent
  company to invoke the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of the High
  Court. Learned counsel for the respondent company however
B urged that since the matter rested on an interpretation of
  various Sections of the Act, an appeal to statutory authority
  created under the said Act would not be an efficacious remedy.

        21. In the peculiar facts of the case and specially having
  regard to the nature of the proceedings, we do not wish to
C decide the controversy raised in this case on the question of
  non-availability of a statutory remedy. The impugned order was
  passed in the year 2004 and thereafter the writ petition was
  entertained by the two Benches of the High court and after that
  the matter is pending before us. Now we are in 2012. To
D dismiss the order of the two Benches of the High Court inter
  alia on the ground that the writ petition was entertained despite
  the existence of a statutory remedy and then send it back to
  the remedy of appeal after a period of eight years, would not,
  in our judgment, be a correct exercise of judicial discretion.
E However, we are of the opinion that normally the statutory
  remedy of appeal should be availed of in a situation like this.

        22. From the aforesaid discussion it is clear that this case
  calls for interpretation of certain statutory provisions. It is not ·
F disputed, and possibly cannot be disputed, that the Act is a
  social welfare legislation. The Act is one of the earliest Acts
  after the Constitution came into existence. Prior to its
  enactment, the requirement of having a suitable legislation for
  compulsory institutional and contributory provident fund in
G industrial undertakings was discussed several times at various
  tripartite meetings in which representatives of the Central and
  State Governments and employees and workers took part.
  Initially a non-official Bill on the subject was introduced in the
  Central Legislature in 1948 and was withdrawn with the
H assurance that the Government would consider the introduction
REGIONAL P. F. COMMISSIONER v. HOOGHLY MILLS 379
     CO. LTD. [ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, J.]
of a comprehensive Bill. Finally, the proposed legislation was        A
endorsed by the conference of Provincial Labour Ministers in
January, 1952 and later on the same was introduced in 1952.
This Court had occasion to expressly hold that the said Act is
a beneficial social welfare legislation to ensure benefits to the
employees. In the case of Regional Provident Fund                     B
Commissioner v. S.D. College, Hoshiarpur and others
reported in (1997) 1 SCC 241, this Court while interpreting
Section 148 of the Act held that the Act envisages the
imposition of damages for delayed payment (paragraph 10 at
page 244 of the report). This Court also held that the Act is a       C
beneficial social legislation to ensure health and other benefits
of the employees and the employer under the Act is under a
statutory obligation to make the deposit. In paragraph 11, it has
also been held that in the event of any default committed in this
behalf Section 148 steps in and calls upon the employer to pay        D
damages.

     23. If we look at the modern legislative trend we will discern
that there is a large volume of legislation enacted with the
purpose of introducing social reform by improving the E
conditions of certain class of persons who might not have been
fairly treated in the past. These statutes are normally.called
remedial statutes or social welfare legislation, whereas penal
statutes are sometime enacted providing for penalties for
disobedience of laws making those who disobey, liable to F
imprisonment, fine, forfeiture or other penalty.

     24. The normal canon of interpretation is that a remedial
statute receives liberal construction whereas a penal statute
calls for strict construction. In the cases of remedial sta~utes, if
there is any doubt, the same is resolved in favour of the class G
of persons for whose benefit the statute is enacted, but in cases
of penal statutes if there is any doubt the same is normally
resolved in favour of the alleged offender.

     25. It is no doubt true that the said Act effectuates the        H
    380       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2012) 1 S.C.R.


A   economic message of the Constitution as articulated in the
    Directive Principles of State Policy.

       26. Under the Directive Principles the State has the
  obligation for securing just and humane conditions of work which
8 includes a living wage and decent standard of life. The said Act
  obviously seeks to promote those goals. Therefore,
  interpretation of the said Act must not only be liberal but it must
  be informed by the values of Directive Principles. Therefore,
  an awareness of the social perspective of the Act must guide
C the interpretative process of the legislative device.

        27. Keeping those broad principles in mind, if we look at
  the Objects and Reasons in respect of the relevant Section it
  will be easier for this court to appreciate the statutory intent.
  The opening words of Section 148 are, "where an employer
D makes a default in the payment of contribution to the fund". This
  was incorporated by way of an amendment, vide Amending Act
  37of1953. In this connection, the excerpts from the Statement
  of Objects and Reasons of Act 37 of 1953 are very pertinent.
  Relevant excerpts are:-
E
          ''There are also certain administrative difficulties to be set
          right. There is no provision for inspection of exempted
          factories; nor is there any provision for the recovery of
          dues from such factories. An employer can delay payment
F         of provident fund dues without any additional financial
          liability. No punishment has been laid down for
          contravention of some of the provisions of the Act.
               This Bill seeks primarily to remedy these defects'. -
          S.O.R., Gazette of India, 1953, Extra, Pt.II, Sec.2, p.910."
G
       28. Similarly, in respect of Section 17(1A), clause (a) which
  makes Section 148 applicable to an exempted establishment
  also came by way of an amendment, namely, by Act 33 of 1988.
  Here also if we look at the relevant portion of the Statement of
H Objects and Reasons of Act 33 of 1988 we will find 1hat they
REGIONAL P. F. COMMISSIONER v. HOOGHLY MILLS381
     CO. LTD. [ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, J.]
are based on certa.in recommendations of the High level                A
committee to review the working of the Act. Various
recommendations were incorporated in the Objects and
Reasons and one of the objects of such amendment is as
follows:-
                                                                       B
          "(viii) the existing legal and penal provisions, as
    applicable to unexempted establishments, are being made
    applicable to exempted establishments, so as to check the
    defaults on their part;"

    29. It is well known that an interpretation of the statute which   C
harmonizes with its avowed object is always to be accepted
than the one which dilutes it.

      30. The problem of statutory interpretation has been a
matter of considerable judicial debate in almost all common law        o
jurisdictions.

     31. Justice Felix Frankfurter dealt with this problem rather
comprehensively in his Sixth Annual Benjamin N. Cardozo
Lecture [See 47 Columbia Law Review 527 (1947)]. The
                                                                       E
learned Judge opined:-

     "Anything that is written may present a problem of
     meaning, and that is the essence of the business of judges
     in construing legislation. The problem derives from the very
     nature of words. They are symbols of meaning."                    F
     32. About what the words connote, there is a very
illuminating discussion by Friedrich Bodmer, a Swiss
Philologist in his treaties "The Loom of Language". Bodmer,
who was a Professor in the Massachusetts Institute of                  G
Technology, said:-

     "Words are not passive agents meaning the same thing
     and carrying the same value at all times and in all contexts.
     They do not come in standard shapes and sizes like coins
                                                                       H
    382       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2012] 1 S.C.R.


A         from the mint, nor do they go forth with a degree to all the
          world that they shall mean only so much, no more and no
          less. Through its own particular personality each word has
          a penumbra of meaning which no draftsman can entirely
          cut away. It refuses to be used as a mathematical symbol."
B
       33. The aforesaid formulation by Professor Bodmer was
  cited with approval by the Constitution Bench of this Court in
  S.C. Advocates-on-Record Association & ors., v. Union of
  India reported in 1993 (4) SCC 441 at page 553. Justice
C Holmes in Towne v. Eisner[245 US 418] thought in the same
  way by saying:

          "a word is not a crystal, transparent and unchanged; it is
          the skin of a living thought and may vary greatly in colour
          and content according to the circumstances and the time
D         in which it is used."

        34. Therefore, about the problem of interpretation we may
  again go back to what Justice Frankfurter said in the aforesaid
  article. This is of considerable importance. The learned Judge
E said:

          " ... The process of construction, therefore, is not an
          exercise in logic or dialetic: The aids of formal reasoning
          are not irrelevant; they may simply be inadequate. The
          purpose of construction being the ascertainment of
F         meaning, every consideration brought to bear for the
          solution of that problem must be devoted to that end
          alone ... ~

       35. Therefore, while construing the statute where there may
G be some doubt the Court has to consider the statute as a whole
  - its design, its purpose and the remedy which it seeks to
  achieve. Chief Justice Sinha of this Court, in State of West
  Bengal v. Union of India reported in AIR 1963 SC 1241 at
  1245, emphasized the importance of construing the statute as
H a whole. In the words of Chief Justice:-
REGIONAL P. F. COMMISSIONER v. HOOGHLY MILLS 383
     CO. LTD. [ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, J.]
    "The Court must ascertain the intention of the Legislature       A
    by directing its attention not merely to the clauses to be
    construed but to the entire statute; it must compare the
    clause with the other parts of the law, and the setting in
    which the clause to be interpreted occurs".
                                                                     B
     36. Lord Greene, Master of Rolls, also gave the same
direction in Re, Bidie (deceased), [(1948) 2 All ER 995, page
998]. In the words of Master of Rolls the technique should be:-

    "to read the statue as a whole and ask oneself the
    question: 'In this state, in this context, relating to this      C
    subject-matter, what is the true meaning of that word'?"

      37. Therefore, what is required to be done in the instant
case for construing the provisions of Section 148 and 17(1A)(a)
is to adopt a purposive approach, an approach which promotes         o
the purposes of the Act which have been discussed above.
About the development of purposive approach, Bennion on
Statutory Interpretation (Fifth Edition) has traced its origin:-

     "General judicial adoption of the term 'purposive               E
     construction' is recent, but the concept is not new. Viscount
     Dilhorne, citing Coke, said that while it is now fashionable
     to talk of a purposive ,construction of a statute the need
     for such a construction bas been recognised since the
     seventeenth century. In fact the recognition goes
     considerably further back than that."                           F

     38. In this connection, the opinion of Lord Diplock in Jones
v. Wrotham Park Settled Estates [(1980) AC 74] is very
pertinent. At page 105 of the report the learned Law Lord said:-
                                                                     G
     "I am not reluctant to adopt a purposive construction where
     to apply the literal meaning of the legislative language
     used would lead to results which would clearly defeat the
     purposes of the Act. But in doing so the task on which a
     court of justice is engaged remains one of construction,        H
    384       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2012] 1 S.C.R.


A         even where this involves reading into the Act words which
          are not expressly included in it."

         39. This Court has already decided in N.K. Jain and others
    v. C.K. Shah and others reported in (1991) 2 SCC 495 that
    for construing the provision of this very Act a purposive
8
    approach should be adopted.

       40. In N.K. Jain (supra) the question was whether criminal
  proceedings can be instituted under Section 14 of the Act in
  respect of an establishment which is exempted under Section
C 17 thereof, for contravention of the provisions of Section 6 of
  the Act.

        41. Answering the question affirmatively the Court held in
    paragraph 13:
D
          "... legislative purpose must be noted and the statute must
          be read as a whole. In our view taking into consideration
          the object underlying the Act and on reading Sections 14
          and 17 in full, it becomes clear that cancellation of the
          exemption granted does not amount to a penalty within the
E
          meaning of Section 14(2Al. As already noted these
          provisions which form part of the Act, which is a welfare
          legislation are meant to ensure the employees the
          continuance of the benefits of the provident fund. They
          should be interpreted in such a way so that the purpose
F         of the legislation is allowed to be achieved."

      42. In coming to the aforesaid conclusion the learned
  Judges relied on the famous dictum of Lord Denning in Seaford
  Court Estates Ltd. v. Asher- (1949) 2 All E.R. 155 (CA)
G wherein the learned Judge stated the position thus:
          "... A Judge should ask himself the question how, if the
          makers of the Act had themselves come across this ruck
          in the texture of it, they would have straightened it out? He
          must then do so as they would have done. A judge must
H
REGIONAL P. F. COMMISSIONER v. HOOGHLY MILLS 385
     CO. LTD. [ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, J.]

    not alter the material of which the Act is woven, but he can        A
    and should iron out the creases."

     43. In view of the interpretation of the Act in N.K. Jain
(supra) there is no difficulty in construing the provision of Section
17(1A)(a) where it is provided that when an exemption has been          B
granted to an establishment under Clause (a) of sub-section
(1), the provision of Sections 6, 7, 8 and 14B of the Act shall,
"so far as may be" apply to the employer of the exempted
establishment in addition to such other condition as may be
specified in the notification granting such exemption.
                                                                        c
     44. If we look at sub-section (a) which has been set out
hereinbefore, we will find that sub-clause (a) of Section 17(1A)
is divided in two parts. The second part is more specific in as
much as it has been clearly stated that where an employer
contravenes and makes default in compliance with any of the             D
said conditions and provisions or any other provisions of this
Act, (this would obviously include Section 14B), he shall be
 punishable under Section 14 as if the said establishment had
 not been exempted under clause (a). Therefore, there is a
 deeming provision giving clear indication of application of            E
 Section 14B of the Act to the 'employer' of an 'exempted
 establishment'.

    45. Thus, the sweep of the second part of clause (a) of
Section 17(1A) which is preceded by the word 'and' is very
                                                                        F
wide.

      46. Section 14B may also be considered in this
 connection. 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.                G

      47. The expression 'fund' has been defined under Section
 2(h) of the Act to mean the provident fund as established under
 a Scheme. Though the word 'scheme' has been defined under
 Section 2(1) to mean the employees provident fund scheme               H
   ' 386     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2012) 1 S.C.R.

·A framed under Section 5, this Court in N.K. Jain (supra) held
    the definition of the word 'fund' would apply to a scheme
    operating in an establishment exempted under Section 17. In
   that case it was urged on behalf of the respondent that the
   expression 'fund' and 'scheme' must be given a wide
 B interpretation to include fund under a private scheme. Such
   submission on behalf of the respondent was noted in paragraph
   16 at page 518 of the report. In para 17 at page 518 of the
   report, this Court on consideration of the ratio in the case of
   Knightsbridge Estates Trust Ltd. v. Byrne - (1940) 2 All E.R.
 C 401 (Ch.D) and the decision of this Court in National Buildings
   Construction Corporation v. Pritam Singh Gill reported in
   (1972) 2 sec 1 and also various other decisions accepted the
   said construction. Applying these principles, decided in the
   aforesaid cases, this Court has held "consequently if there is
 D a default in payment of the contribution to such a scheme it
   amounts to contravention of Section 6 punishable under
   Section 14(1A)". (See page 517 of the report)

       48. Following the same parity of reasoning, we hold if there
E is a default in payment of contribution to such a scheme it
  amounts to contravention of Section 148 and damages can be
  levied. The High Court, with great respect, erred by corning to
  a contrary conclusion.

      49. Apart from that the High Court's interpretation of the
F 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.
       50. The High Court is guided in the interpretation of the
G 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
H 989. It goes without saying that Foreign Exchange Regulation
REGIONAL P. F. COMMISSIONER v. HOOGHLY MILLS 387
     CO. LTD. [ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, J.]
  Act is a fiscal statute dealing with penal provisions whereas the        A
· 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. Even then· in Pratap
  Singh (supra) this Court while construing "so far as may be"
  held "if a deviation becomes necessary to carry out the                  B
  purposes of the Act. ....................... it would be permissible".
  Of course the Court held that if such deviation is challenged
  before a Court of law it has to be justified.

      51. In the instant case, the High Court failed to discern the        C
 correct principle of interpretation of a social welfare legislation.
 In this connection we may profitably refer to what was said by
 Chief Justice Chagla about interpretation of a social welfare
 or labour legislation in Prakash Cotton Mills (P) Ltd. v. State
 of Bombay reported in (1957) 2 LLJ 490. Justice Chagla
                                                                           0
 unerringly laid down:

       "no labour legislation, no social legislation, no economic
       legislation, can be considered by a court without applying
       the principles of social justice in interpreting the provisions
       of these laws. Social justice is an objective which is              E
       embodied and enshrined in our Constitution ...... it would
       indeed be startling for anyone to suggest that the court
       should shut its eyes to social justice and consider and
        interpret a law as if our country had not pledged itself to
        bringing about social justice."                                    F

      52. We endorse the same view. In fact this has been
  endorsed by this Court in N.K. Jain (supra).

       53. Reference in this connection may be made to what
  was said by Justice Krishna lyyer in the same vein in the G
  decision of Surendra Kumar Berma and others v. Central
  Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, New Delhi
  and Anr., reported in 1980 (4) SCC 443. The learned judge
  held that semantic luxuries are misplaced in the interpretation
                                                                  H
  of 'bread and butter' statutes.
     388      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2012] 1 S.C.R.


 A         54. Unfortunately, the 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.
 B
         55. The interpretation of the expression "so far as may be"
    by this Court in its Constitution Bench decision in M. Ismail
    Faruqui (supra) was given in a totally different context. The said
   judgment on a Presidential Reference was rendered in the
C context of the well known Ram Janam Bhumi Babri Masjid
   controversy where a special Act, namely, Acquisition of Certain
   Area at Ayodhya Act was enacted and sub-section (3) of
   Section 6 of the said Act provides that the provisions of
   Sections 4, 5 & 7 shall "so far as may be" apply in relation to
   such authority or body or trustees as they apply in relation to
0
   the Central Government. In that context this Court held that the
   expression "so far as may be" is indicative of the fact that all
   or any of these provisions may or may not be applicable to the
  transferee under sub-section (1 ). The objects behind the said
  enactment are totally unique and the same was a special law.
E Apart from this, this Court did not lay down any general principle
  of interpretation in the application of the expression "so far as
  may be". Their being vast conceptual difference in the legal
  questions in that case, the interpretation of "so far as may be"
F in M. Ismail Faruqui (supra) cannot be applied to the
  interpretation of "so far as may be" in the present case.

           56. The High Court's interpretation also was in error for
     not considering another well settled principle of interpretation.
     It is not uncommon to find legislature sometime using words
G by way of abundant caution. To find out whether the words are
     used by way of abundant caution the entire scheme of the Act
   · is to be considered at the time of interpretation. In this
     connection we may remember the observation of Lord Reid in
     l.R. Commissioner v. Dowdall O'Mahoney & Co. reported in
t"i (1952) 1 All E.R. 531 at page 537, wherein the learned Law
REGIONAL P. F. COMMISSIONER v. HOOGHLY MILLS 389
     CO. LTD. [ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, J.)

Lord said that it is not uncommon to find that legislature is A
inserting superfluous provisions under the influence of what may
be abundant caution. The same principle has been accepted
by this Court in many cases. The High Court by adopting, if we
may say so, a rather strait jacket formula in the interpretation
of the expression "so far as may be" has in our judgment, B
 misinterpreted the intent and scope and the purpose of the Act.

     57. For the reasons aforesaid, we are not inclined to
accept the interpretation of the High Court and we are
constrained to overrule the judgment of the Single Bench as    C·
also of the Division Bench.

    58. 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.      D
     59. The appeal is allowed. However, parties are left to
 bear their own costs:
 R.P.                                       Appeal allowed.