SOUTH GUJARAT ROOFING TILES MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION AND ANR. versus STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER

Citation: [1977] 1 S.C.R. 878 · Decided: 20-10-1976 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.V. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
878 
SOUTH GUJARAT ROOFING TILES MANUFACTURERS 
ASSOCIATION AND ANR. 
v. 
STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER 
October 20, 1976 
[Y. V. CHANDRACHUD, P. K. GOSWAMI AND A. C. GUPTA, JJ.] 
• 
Minimum Wages Act, 1948, Entry 22 Explanation Part I of Schedule, con-
struction of word includes-Whether potteries Industry includes manufacture of 
. Mangalore pattern roofing tiles. 
• 
By a Notification issued under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, the Govern-
ment fixed the minimum rates of wages in respect of potteries industry, on the 
basis of a committee's report. Later, proceedings were started against the second 
appellant, a partnership firm manufacturing Mangalore type roofing tiles, on 
the complaint of an inspector alleging that th~ partners of the firm had failed 
to produce their muster roll and the wages register for his examination. 
The 
Magistrate acquitted the appellant holding that Entry 22 did not cover roofing 
tiles. The High Court affirmed the acquittal on merits, but opined that manu-
facture of roofing tiles was included in the potteries industry. 
The appellants contended that the Articles mentioned in the explanation were 
exhaustive of the objects covered by entry 22, and did not cover roofing tiles, 
while the respondent State contende(! that the Explanation "includes" not only 
the objects mentioned therein, but other articles like roofing tiles. 
t·
Allowing the appeal, the Court, 
HELD : (1) The word "includes" is generally used as a word of extension, 
but has been used here the sense of 'means'; this is the only construction that 
the word can bear in the context. ln that sense it is not a word of extension, 
but limitation; it is exhaustive of the meaning which must be given to potteries 
industry for the purpose of Entry 22. [882 G-H] 
Dilworth v. Commissioner of Stamps (1899 AC. 105-106) applied. 
(2) The manufacture of Mangalore pattern roofing tiles is outside the pur-
view of Entry · 22. 
The explanation could not possibly have been introduced 
to extend the meaning of potteries industry or the artciles listed therein added 
ex abundallli cautela. [882 D-F; 883 Al 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil App~al No. 1947 of 1975. 
G 
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated 
y 
H 
9-10-1975 of the Gujarat High Court in Special Civil Application 
No. 1339/75. 
V. M. Tarkunde, P. H. Parekh, Miss Manju Jatley and (Miss) 
Manik Tarkunde, for the Appellants. 
D. V. Patel and M. N. Shroff, for Respondent No. 1. 
K. L. Hathi and P. C. Kapur, for Respondent No. 2. 
l-
I ., 
~ 
-\ 
SOUTH GUJARAT ROOFING TILES v. GUJARAT (Gupta, !.) 
87S 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
GUPTA, J.-The first appellant is an association of the manufacturers 
of Mangalore pattern roofing tiles in south Gujarat area, 
the other 
appellant, a pa~tnership firm, is a member of the association. 
The 
question that falls to be determined in this appeal by special leave 
is whether entry 22 added by the Gujarat Government by notification 
dated March 27, 1967 to Part I of the Schedule to the Minimum Wages 
Act, 1948 covers Mangalore pattern roofing tiles. 
Entry 22 reads 
:is follows; 
"Empioyment in potteries Industry. 
Explanation:-For the purpose. of this entry potteries industry 
includes the manufacture of the following articles of pottery, namely:-
• 
(a) Crockery 
(b) Sanitary appliances and fittings 
(c) Refractories 
(d) Jars 
(e) Electrical accessories1 
(f) Hospital ware 
(g) Textile accessories 
(h) Toys 
(i) Glazea Tiles" 
We may also refer to certain other provisions of the Minimum wages 
Act which! provide, the context to the question arising for decision. 
Section 2 (g) defines "scheduled employment" as meaning "any em· 
ployment specified in the Schedule or any process or branch of 
work forming part of such! employment". 
The schedule is in two 
parts. 
Part H which relates to employment in agriculture only .4s 
not relevant for the purpose of this aPpeal. 
Section 3 authorises 
the appropriate Government to fix or revise the minimum rates of 
wages payable to employees in scheduled employments. 
Section 
5 
prescribes the procedure for fixing \and revising minimum wages. 
In fixing minimum rates of wages in respect of any scheduled 
Section 5 prescribes the procedure for fixing and revising minimum 
wages. 
In fixing minimum rates of wages in respect of any scheduled; 
employment for the fi11St time or in revising the rates so fixed, 
the 
appropriate Government must either
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.