REGIONAL DIRECTOR, EMPLOYEE'S STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION versus HIGH LAND COFFEE WORKS OF P.F.X. SALDANHA AND SONS AND ANR

Citation: [1991] 3 S.C.R. 307 · Decided: 26-07-1991 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

REGIONAL DIRECTOR, EMPLOYEE'S STATE INSURANCE 
CORPORATION 
v. 
HIGH LAND COFFEE WORKS OF P.F.X. SALDANHA 
AND SONS AND ANR 
JULY 26, 1991 
[K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY, V. RAMASWAMI AND 
YOGESHWAR DAYAL, JJ.] 
Employees State Insurance Act, 1948-Sections 1(4) and 2( 12)-
A 
B 
Seasonal factory' exemption from Statute-Whether arises. 
C 
The Regional Director, State Employees Corporation the appel-
lant in the instant case claimed for covering the factories of the respon-
dents M/s. High Land Coffee Works of P.F.X. Saldanha & Sons under 
the provisions of the Employees State Insurance Act 1948. 
Section 1(4) of the Act excludes "seasonal factory" from the scope 
of the Act. The seasonal factory is defined under section 2(12) of the 
Act. 
The factories of the respondents were excluded from the operation 
D 
of the Act since they were declared to be seasonal factories within the 
E 
meaning of the definition of section 2(12) of the Act. 
By amending Act 44 of 1966 which came into force from 28th 
January, 1966,the definition of 'seasonal factory' has been amended 
and accordingly the seasonal factory means a factory which exclusively 
engaged in one or more of the manufacturing processes detailed in t':te 
F 
definition and includes a factory which is engaged for a period not 
exceeding seven months in a year. The expressions manufacturing pro-
cess & power shall hav' the meaning respectively assigned to them in. 
the Factories Act 1948. 
So after the amendment the Corporation called upon the respon-
G 
dents to pay the contributions payable under the Act and threatened to 
take coercive steps to recover the arrears under the Revenue Recovery 
Act and prosecute them. 
The respondents challenged the demand made by the appellants 
in the Employees Insurance Court contending that even the amending 
H 
307 
A 
308 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1991] 3 S.C.R. 
Act 44 of 1966 has not altered the definition of seasonal factory, would 
still excludes such factory from the operation of the Act. The Employees 
Insurance Court accepted the plea of the respondents and even the 
Karnataka High Court agreed to the view of aforesaid Court. So the 
Corporation appealed to this Court. 
B 
The sole question before the Court for consideration is whether 
the respondents' factories in view of the amendment to the definition of 
seasonal factory have lost the benefit of exclusion from the Act. 
Dismissing t!te appeals and the ·special leave petition the Court, 
QELD: That in the instant case the High Court observation that 
· C 
the purpose of the definition by the amending act was to enlarge and not 
to restrict the Statutory concept of seasonal factory so the position of the 
respondents establishments as seasonal factories remain unaltered. This 
view seems to be justified because the objects reasons of the Bill of the 
amending Act clearly indicates that the proposed amendment was to 
D ·bring within the scope of the definition of seasonal factory' a factory 
which works for a period of not exceeding seven months in a year a) in 
·any process of blending, packing orJepacking of tea or coffee b) in 
such other manufacturing processes as the Central Government may, 
by notification in the official Gazettee specify. Thus amendment is 
. clearly jn favour of widening the definition of seasonal factory' because 
E the word 'include' in the Statutory definition is generally used to 
enlarge the meaning of the preceeding words. This is well accepted 
statutory construction that in interpretation clauses in order to enlarge 
the words or phrases occuring in the body of the statute the word 
include is very generally used. [3JOF-311C) 
F 
Stroud's Dictionary, 5th Edn. Vol. 3 page 1263. 
C./. T. Andhra Pradesh v. M/s. Taj Mahal Hotel, Secunderabad, 
[1971] 3 SCC 550 and State of Bombay v. The Hospital Mazdoor Sabha 
& Ors., [1960] 2 SCR p. 666 at 875, referred to. 
G 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 
1837-1841of1977. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.10.1976 of the Karna-
taka High Court in Misc. First Appeal Nos. 557 to 561 of 1975. 
H 
Cr. Anand Prakash, Ms. Kitty Kumaramangalam and C. V. 
Subba Rao for the Appellant. 
• 
,... 
E.S.l. v. HIGH LAND COFFEE WORKS ISHETTY. J.] 
309 
G.B. Pai, Dr. Shankar Ghosh, D.N. Mishra and Ms. Mridula 
Ray for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY, J. These appeals by special leave 
are directed against the judgment of the Karnataka High Court reject-
ing t

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