ANDHRA UNIVERSITY ETC. versus REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ANR.

Citation: [1985] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 582 · Decided: 08-10-1985 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: O. CHINNAPPA REDDY · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
lJ 
E 
F 
G 
H 
582 
ANDllllA UNIVERSITY ETC, 
v. 
RF.GIOllAL PROVIDENT PUllD <XHIISSIO!llER OF 
AND1111A PRADESll AND AN&. 
OCTOBER 8, 1985 
[O. CHINNAPPA REDDY, V. BALAKIUSHNA ERADI AND V. KHALID, JJ.] 
Employees' Provident Funds 
and Miscellaneous Provisions 
Act, sections l(3)(a), 2(1-C), 2(g) and 2(a), scope of - Whether 
the establishments namely, the Departments of Publications and 
Press of the Andhra and Osmania Universities are "factories" and 
their activities fall under "manufacture" and therefore they are 
governed by the provisions of the said Act - Interpretation of 
the word "establishment" in section 2-A· 
The Faployeea' Provident Funda and Miscellaneous Provisions 
Act appliea to every eatabli1bment which is a "factory• engaged 
in and "industry" specified in Schedule I and in which 20 or more 
persona are employed. The exprealiona "manufacture• and "factory" 
are defined in section 2(1-C) and 2(g) of the Act. 
The 
establiahments namely, the Departments of Publications and Press 
of the two Univerlitiea each employing 100 persona, run printing 
presaea, where the work of printing of text books, journals and 
magazinea for the various conatituant and affiliated colleges as 
well as of various items of stationary such as admission forms to 
colleges, ho1tela and examinations, forms of memo of marks, hell 
tickets, 8D8118r bookl, ayllabi for various colleges and depart-
ments., regiatera, receipt booka for colleges and hostela and 
letter heed8 for Univeraitiea is carried out. The Regional 
Provident Fund Collllliaaionar called upon the two Univeraitiea to 
submit their monthly returns and remit the amounta of contribu-
tion u 
required by the proviliona of the scheme covered under 
the Faployeea 1 Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act. 
Two writ petitions were therefore, filed by the appellants 
separately challeog1ng the legality and validity of the notices 
iHued to them by the Regional Provident Fund Coaaisaionar, 
contending (i) that the Univerlitiea are purely educational 
institutions having a number of departmenta, the main object of 
which ia to impart education to the youth of the country in 
various bram:hea of atudents, and therefore, the Department of 
Publications and PrH~ which 1a intended only to cater the needa 
and requirements of the atudents cannot be regarded either aa a 
"factory" or aa an "industry" attracting the provisions of the 
Act; and (11) that the two Univeraities had their own provident 
ANDHRA UNIVERSITY V• P.F. COMMR. 
583 
fUDd acbemea for their employees and therefore, there was no 
juatification for subjecting them to the provisions of the Act. A A 
leam.d Single Judge of the High Court 
accepting the said 
contentioll8 allowed the writ petitions. However, on appeal.a filed 
by the Bq1onal Providmt Fund Commiasiooer, Andhra Pradesh, the 
Diviaion lleDch by two aeparate jwlgmellta set aside the jwigm!lnts 
of the leaned Single Judge and held that the Department of 
Publicat1oll8 and Preas of each of the two Uoiveraities ia an B 
"establishment" which is a factory eogaged in an industry 
apec1f1ed in Schedule I, in which more than 20 persOllS were 
employed and hence the provisiOll8 of the Act and the Scheme were 
applicable in respect of these Departments. llellce the appeals by 
apeci.al leave. 
Diami991ng tM app2&l.e, the Court, 
c 
llBU> 1 l.l 'Io attract the provisious of the F.mployees' 
Provident Funds and Miscellaoeoua Provisions Act, two teats 
namely, whether there is an establishment which is a "factory" 
eogaged iD an.y of the scheduled industries and whether 20 or more 0 
persons are employP.d in the B&id eetabliabmeot 1111st be fulfilled. 
[587 !i') 
l.2 Printi113 ia one of the industries specified in Schedule 
I of the Act. and it is admitted that llllCh more than 20 peraons 
are employed in the concerned establishment of the two Univer-
E 
sitiea. [588 A] 
l.3 
The 
Departments 
of 
Publlcatioua 
and 
Press are 
"factories" as defined in clause (g) of section 2 of the Act. 
Under the·definition, "factory" means soy premiaes, in sn.y part 
of vh1ch a 11181111facturi113 process is be1113 carried on. The 
printi113 of text booka, journal.a, regiatera, forms and variowi F 
itema of atationery clearly constitute "manufacture" within the 
me•nlng of the said expreaaiou aa defined in clause (1-<:) of 
section 2 of the Act. [587 ~; 588 A] 
1.4 It ia therefore clear that all the requirements of 
clauae 3(a) of aection (l) of the Act are ful

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.