Case: State Vs. Girdharlal Bajaj &amp; Another

or salary in the service of an employer" .. .. .. ... .. .. ...It seems to us that the word "employee" as used in section 419 of the Indian Companies Act, has been used in contra-distinction to the word "employer" and that in the use of the word "employee" the legislature contemplated the existence of a relationship of master and servant or what is the same thing between the employer and the employee. Obviously, an employee would be a person under the control of the employer and would be bound to obey the orders of the employer not only as to the work which he shall execute, but also as to the details of the work and the manner of its execution. The attributes of an employee have been stated with clarity in Diamonds 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 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 the question of interpretation. Moreover, it seems to us that when sections 417, 418, 419 and 420 of the Indian Companies Act, were enacted, the present-day notions of social justice between employer and employee were not the same and it is conceivable that the legislature may have thought that upon termination of the contract of service the employee should be relegated to his normal remedies of a suit and the normal remedies which the employee has to safeguard the payment of provident fund amount pending his suit, such as are given to him by the Code of Civil Procedure. It seems to us that the legislature contemplated that it would be a serious inroad upon the rights of the employer to permit the employee who has ceased to be an employee, to inspect the securities and Bank receipts for moneys of his former employer. If is not as if the employee whose contract of service has been terminated would be entirely without a remedy. Upon the termination of his services, his right would be an immediate right to the receipt of the provident fund amount, whereas during the continuance of his contract of service he has no right to recover the provident fund amount from the employer or the trustees. Hence, the difference in the remedies made available to the employee and the consequent difference in the right to inspect.16. On behalf of the accused Mr. Amin raised a number of other contentions, particularly that the right of inspection conferred upon the complainant, if any was a right personal to him and that in this case no demand was made for inspection by the complainant himself, but that on the other hand, his attorneys letter showed that they had asked for inspection for themselves a right which section 419 does not confer on them. The other contention which was raised was that the employers have not in the instant case "knowingly" contravened or authorised or permitted the contravention of the provisions of section 419, and Mr. Amin set forth a number of circumstances from which absence of knowledge could be inferred. We need not decide these contentions because of the view which we have taken of the provisions of Sec.419 itself if that the word "employee" means an employee as such and not an ex-employee or past employee or a person whose contract of service has been put an end to.17. In the course of the arguments at the Bar it was alleged, but controverted, that the employers to this case have not set apart the amounts 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 2 to place the facts before the Court undoubtedly indicates that in all probability they have not complied with the provisions of section 417(1) and (2) and that that is the reason why a clear affidavit could not be filed by them.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]9. The right which section 419 of the Indian Companies Act, confers upon the employee to see the Banks receipt for moneys or securities pertaining to his Provident Fund Account, is conferred upon him by theLooking to the language used in Sec.419, it would appear that the words of the section would ordinarily admit of no doubt of difficulty and that when the section uses the word "employee", it means an employee.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.The passage which we have juststates the exception and not the general rule. The passage itself indicates that the first and cardinal rule of construction of a statute is to give effect to the words of the statute; but that it is only in exceptional cases where there is any doubt or difficulty as to the interpretation of the statute or any word thereof, that the Court can legitimately look to the object of the enactment or in the purpose for which it was made.12a. We have already observed that upon a plain reading of section 419 of the Indian Companies Act, 1956, it would appear that there is no such doubt orwill be clear from the passage which we have quoted above, that the decision in Wilkinsons case (1948) 1 KB 721 turned upon the particular provisions of the statute which fell to be construed in that case, namely, the Local Government Act, 1937, and it was because that Court found in the statute itself an indication that the word "contributory employee" could include anor past employee that they interpreted the word "employee" as having the same connotation. That is not the position here so far as the provisions of the Indian Companies Act are concerned. Neither do the words "contributory employee" occur in the Indian Companies Act; nor is the word "employee" anywhere defined. Moreover, their is no other indication in the Act that when the Legislature used the word "employee," they might have intended to refer to anor past employee. Therefore, it can be given only its normalseems to us that the word "employee" as used in section 419 of the Indian Companies Act, has been used into the word "employer" and that in the use of the word "employee" the legislature contemplated the existence of a relationship of master and servant or what is the same thing between the employer and the employee. Obviously, an employee would be a person under the control of the employer and would be bound to obey the orders of the employer not only as to the work which he shall execute, but also as to the details of the work and the manner of its execution. The attributes of an employee have been stated with clarity in Diamonds 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 theargument, is no doubt well taken but cannot affect the question of interpretation. Moreover, it seems to us that when sections 417, 418, 419 and 420 of the Indian Companies Act, were enacted, thenotions of social justice between employer and employee were not the same and it is conceivable that the legislature may have thought that upon termination of the contract of service the employee should be relegated to his normal remedies of a suit and the normal remedies which the employee has to safeguard the payment of provident fund amount pending his suit, such as are given to him by the Code of Civil Procedure. It seems to us that the legislature contemplated that it would be a serious inroad upon the rights of the employer to permit the employee who has ceased to be an employee, to inspect the securities and Bank receipts for moneys of his former employer. If is not as if the employee whose contract of service has been terminated would be entirely without a remedy. Upon the termination of his services, his right would be an immediate right to the receipt of the provident fund amount, whereas during the continuance of his contract of service he has no right to recover the provident fund amount from the employer or the trustees. Hence, the difference in the remedies made available to the employee and the consequent difference in the right toneed not decide these contentions because of the view which we have taken of the provisions of Sec.419 itself if that the word "employee" means an employee as such and not anor past employee or a person whose contract of service has been put an end to.17. In the course of the arguments at the Bar it was alleged, but controverted, that the employers to this case have not set apart the amounts 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 2 to place the facts before the Court undoubtedly indicates that in all probability they have not complied with the provisions of section 417(1) and (2) and that that is the reason why a clear affidavit could not be filed by them.