REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER versus SHIBU METAL WORKS

Citation: [1965] 2 S.C.R. 72 · Decided: 09-11-1964 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER 
A 
v. 
SHIBU METAL WORKS 
November 9, 1964 
(P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J., K. N. WANCHOO AND 
B 
M. HiDAYATULLAH, JJ.] 
Emplaytts Provident Fund Act, 1952, s. 1 (3) read with Schedule /-
Industry engaged in manufacturing brass utensils-Whether this product fell 
within entry 'electrical mechanical and general engineering productlf-
Therefore whether Act applicable to the industry. 
The re8pondent firm, which ran a factory manufacturing brass utenoils, 
filed a Writ Petition for the issue of a mandamus, restraining the appellant 
C 
from recovering contributions alleged to be due under s. 1 ( 3), read with 
Schedule 1, of the Employees Provident Fund Act, 1952, contending, inter 
alia, that the manufacture of brass utensils did not fall within the relevant 
entry in Schedule 1, i.e. it was not an industry engaged in the manufacture 
of 'electrical, mechanical or general engineering products'. 
The learned Single Judge, who heard the petition, rejected the respon-
dent's contention, holding that brass utensils were, in substance, 'drums D 
and containers' I.e. they fell within item (24) and cl. (a) of the Expfana-
tion to Schedule 1, and that therefore their manufacture was covered by 
Schedule I. On appeal, however, the Division Bench reversed this finding 
and issued a writ as prayed for. 
. 
· 
It was contended on behalf of the respondent that the products to 
which the entry referred were products which were useful in, or meant 
for, electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, or general enginl'ef-
E. 
ing. On the other hand, it was the appellant's contention, that the entry 
would take in every industry which was enga~ed in the manufacture of 
products that were manufactured by an electncal, mechanical or gener&I 
engineering process. 
HELD : In construing the relevant entry in Schedule 1, it was neces-
•ary to bear in mind that this entry occurred in an Act which W3" intended 
. to serve a beneficent purpose. If the words used in the entry were cap-
able of a narrow or broad construction, each construction being reasonably 
F· 
'possible, and if it al?peared that the broad construction would help the 
furtherance of the ob1ect, then it would be necessary to prefer that cons-
truction. 
[78 C-Fl 
The nature of the items included in the Explanation to Schedule 1 
clearly showed that some of the items could not reasonably be included 
within the restricted interpretation canvassed by the respondent; on the 
other hand, the mention of several of items would be redundant if the 
wide interpretation advocated by the appellant was to be accepted; [Sl B-H; 
82 A-Fl 
The content of the entry 'electrical, mechanical and general engineering 
products' was that all products which were generally known as electrical 
engineering products or mechanical engineering products or general engi-
neering products were intended to be covered by the entry, and· the object 
of Schedule 1 was to include within the scope of the Act ever/ industry 
which was engaged in the manufacture of electrical engineering. products 
· mechanical engineering products or general engineering products. It wea 
the chafacter of the products that helped to determino tho content· of tho 
entry. · [82 G-H; 83Al 
G 
H 
-
• 
A 
B 
COMl>fiSSIONER v. SIDBU METALS (Gajendragadkar, C.J.) 73 
.f .•.•• 
. 
. 
·--
. 
Thus considered the ·manufacture of brass utensils must be regarded 
as an activity the object of which was the manufacture of general engi-
neering products. [83 F] 
· 
Case law reviewed. 
Civll. APPELLATE JURISDICTION ; Civil Appeal No. 1059 of 
1963. 
Appeal from the judgment and order dated April IO, 1962 
of the Punjab High Court in L.P. Appeal No. 312 of 1959. 
B. Sen and R: N.c Stichthey, for the appellant., 
C. B. Agarwala, ' I. · B. Dadachanji, 0. C. Mathur and 
c Ravinder Narain, for the rispondent. · · .·· · . 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Gajendragadkar, C.J. This appeal raises a· short question as 
to the content of the entry "Electrical, Mechanical or general 
engineering products" used in Schedule 1 to the Employees' Provi-
D dent Fund Act, 1952 (No. 19 of 1952) (hereinafter called the 
Act).. The respondent firm, Shibu Metal Works, runs a factory 
which manufactures brass utensils. Under the Act and the 
scheme framed thereunder, the employer to whose factory the Act 
applies is required to deposit with the appellant, the Regional 
Provident Commissioner, his share of the contribution a

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