ESS DEE CARPET ENTERPRISES versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [1989] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 417 · Decided: 07-12-1989 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: E.S. VENKATARAMIAH · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

• 
ESS DEE CARPET ENTERPRISES 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
DECEMBER 7, 1989 
[E.S. VENKATARAMIAH, CJ, K.N. SINGH AND 
N.M. KASLIWAL, JJ.] 
Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 
1952: Section 1(3)(a) and Schedule 1 clause (b)-Carpet weaving-
Whether comes under the expression "textiles"-Carpet manufacturing 
industry-Whether comes within the scope of the Act. 
The appellant is a partnership firm carrying on business of 
manufacturing and selling carpets in the State of Rajasthan. It owns 
three factories. When the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner took 
steps to direct the appellant firm to comply with the provisions of the 
Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act. 1952, 
the appellant contested .the applicability of the Act on the ground that it 
was not manufacturing textiles included in Schedule I of the Act. The 
Regional Provident Fund Commissioner held that the business of 
manufacturing carpets carried on by the appellant included textiles and 
that the Act was applicable to the appellant. 
Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant approached the Cent-
ral Government under section i9A of the Act, which upheld the order of 
the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner. Thereafter the appellant 
moved the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The writ 
petition was dismissed. The appellant preferred an appeal to the Divi-
sion Bench of the High Court and that appeal was also dismissed. 
This appeal, by special leave, is against the order of the Division 
Bench. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court, 
HELD: 1.1 The activity of manufacturing carpets is generally 
understood as th~ weaving of carpets and the man who is engaged in 
such activity is popularly known as a ~carpet weaver'. Weaving means 
to form a fabric by interlacing yarn on a loom. It also means the method 
or pattern of weaving or the structure of a woven fabric. [420B-C] 
417 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
418 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1989) Supp. 2 S.C.R. 
1.2 Though there may be knotting of the yarn, the fabric which is 
ultimately produced does not cease to be a textile fabric. The fact that 
the Handicrafts Board has issued certificate under the Import Trade 
Control Policy Handbook of Rules that carpet is a product of handi-
crafts does not in any way improve the matter. Even then the carpets do 
not cease to be textiles. That certificate is not enough since it is very 
clear that the activity of making carpet though it involves knotting, 
in substance, amounts to weaving and the carpet is a fabric which 
is woven. Thus it comes within the meaning of the expression '"texti-
les" as explained in clause (d) to the Explanation of Schedule I to the 
Act. [4200-F] 
1.3 The non-inclusion of knotting in the explanation to Schedule 
defining 'textiles' is, therefore, immaterial. [421D) 
Porrits Spencer (Asia) Ltd. v. State of Haryana, [1979) I SCR 
545, relied on. 
D 
2. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, the Govern-
ment of India and the High Court were rjght in holding that the 
establishment of the appellant came within the scope of the Act and 
the appellant was liable to comply with the requirements of the Act 
in all respects. l42IDJ 
E 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1372 
of 1987. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 29. 1. 1986 of the Rajasthan 
High Court in Sp!. Appeal No. 336 of 1984. 
F 
Soli. J. Sorabjee, Roxena Swamy, Sushi! Kr. Jain and L.C. 
Agarwala for the Appellant. 
Anil Dev Singh, Hemani Sharma. C. V .S. Rao, Mrs. Sushma Suri 
(N.P.) and Ms. A. Subhashini (N.P.) for the Respondents. 
G 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
VENKATARAMIAH, CJ. The. question for consideration in 
this appeal is whether an establishment which is manufacturing carpets 
is subject to the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Pro-
visions Act, 1952 (Act XIX of 1952) (hereinafter referred to as 'the 
H 
Act'). Th.: appellant is a partnership firm carrying on the business of 
... 
r 
..
" 
ESS DEE CAROET v. U.0.1. [VENKATARAMIAH, CJ.] 
419 
manufacturing and selling carpets in the State of Rajasthan at three 
factories belonging to it. When steps were taken to direct the appellant 
to comply with the provisions of the A:ct by the Regional Provident 
Fund Commissioner the appellant contested the applicability of the 
Act on the ground that the establishment owned by it was not 
manufacturing 'textiles' included in Schedule I to the Act. The 
Regional Provident Fund Com
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.