CEMINDIA CO. LTD. versus BACHUBHAI N. RAVAL

Citation: [1987] 3 S.C.R. 784 · Decided: 04-08-1987 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: E.S. VENKATARAMIAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

CEMINDIA CO. LTD. 
v. 
BACHUBHAIN. RAVAL 
AUGUST 4, 1987 
[E.S. VENKATARAMIAH AND K.N. SINGH JJ.] 
Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 
1952: Section J(J)(b)-Notification No. GSR 1398--Company 
engaged in 'building and construction industry' Whether Act applies 
to workshop set up by such company for maintenance and repairs 
C of its equipment-Whether all business operations to be taken in 
totality to determine if company is engaged in such activitiy ex-
clusively. 
Words & Phrases: 'Building and construction industry'-
D Meaningof 
By a Notification dated 26-9-1964 issued under Section 1(3)(b) or 
the Employees' Provident Funds Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, 
the Act was made applicable to the establishments of engineers and 
engineering contractors not beiog exclusively engaged in buildiog and 
E constrnction Industry. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner cal· 
led upon the appellant company carrying on busioess as "engioeers and 
engineering contractors" and engaged in building and construction io-
dustry, to show cause why it should not be directed to comply with the 
Act io respect of the workmen employed at its workshop io Bombay. 
The appellant contended that the Act was not applicable sioce it was 
F 
exclusively engaged io building and construction iodustry and that the 
workshop had been set up only for the purpose or carryiog out its work, 
ancillary to the building and construction industry, and not any work 
for others. The respondent negatived the contention and directed the 
appellant to make contributions with effect from 1st December, 1963 in 
respect of the workmen employed at its workshop. 
G 
The appellant assailed the validity of this notice in the Bombay 
High Court, which declined to follow the decision of the Calcutta High 
Court quashiog a similar notice issued by the department in respect of 
the appellant's workshop in Calcutta, dismissed the petition and upheld 
the demand of the department. It held that the Act applied as the 
H 
appellant was not only engaged io buildiog and construction industry 
784 
-
~-
CEMINDIA v. B.N. RAVAL 
785 
but was also engaged in running workshops for maintaining and repair-
A 
ing equipment such as piling machines, drills, etc., and hence it was an 
establishment of engineers and engineering contractors which was not 
"exclusively engaged in building and construction industry." 
Allowing the appeal by special leave, this Court, 
HELD: 1.1 Where an establishment is engaged exclusively in 
carrying on a particular type of business by setting up any place of work 
with a view to carrying on the work of repairs etc. to the tools, 
equipment, vehicles etc. used in its business or to carry on any other 
activity which is essential for its business effectively and which is 
not used to carry on the work for the benefit of any third party but 
utilised exclusively for the business of the establishment, such estab-
lishment does not cease to carry on exclnsively the business in which 
it is engaged. It cannot also be said that the establishment had 
commenced to carry on another industry by the setting up of such a 
place of work. [790B-C] 
1.2 Any such establishment which carries on an activity which 
forms part of the building and construction industry should be exemp-
ted from the operation of the Act because the expression "building and 
construction industry" refers coUectively to all activities which have to 
be performed in connection with the building and construction 
industry. [789F] 
~----
In order to discharge effectively its functions as engineers and en-
gineering contractors engaged In building and construction industry, an 
·,,-
establishment has to maintain a workshop or workshops where the 
work of smithy, welding, cutting, carpentry etc. are carried on. With-
out these operations it is not possible for any person to carry on satis-
factorily the work of building and construction industry. [789G I 
1.4 Such a workshop in which works connected with the business 
of building and construction industry were being carried on in connec-
tion with such business for the owner cannot be construed as a separate 
-I, establishment for purposes of the Act. [790H] 
In the instant case, the work that is being carried on at the appel-
lant's workshop is work of maintaining and repairing of the equipment 
belonging to the appellant only. The appellant is not earning any in-
come or profit by carrying on the work of any other esta

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