THE ASSOCIATED INDUSTRIES (P) LTD. versus THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, KERALA TRIVANDRUM

Citation: [1964] 2 S.C.R. 905 · Decided: 09-04-1963 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

2 s.c.R. 
SUPREME COURT REP9RTS 
905 
THE ASSOCIATED INDUSTRIES (P) LTD. 
v. 
·THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND 
COMMISSIONER, KERALA TRIV ANDRUM 
(P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. N. WANCHOO, 
K. C. DAS GUPTA, J. C. SHAH and 
N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAB JJ.) 
Provident 
Fund-Compo•ite factory--Two independent 
induPtri .. -One as Jailing under the schedule- Whether Eata-
bliahment-The Employeea' Provident Funds Act, 1952 (19.of 
1952), ••· 1 (3) (a) 2,(g) & (i), Schedule I. 
The appeliant runs a tile factory and an engineering 
works al Qµilon. These two industries are indepedenl of each 
other, but they are carried on i/y the same company and on 
the same premises. The tile factory was started in .1943 and 
the engineering works in 19!'10. The engineering industry was 
included in Schedule I of the Act and it employed only 24 
workers, whereas the . tile industry employed more than 50. 
The license issued- to the appellant under the Factories Act, 
1948, was for the entire premises. The appellant moved a 
writ petition in the High Cotirt in which he alleged that its 
factory did not attract the provisions of s. I (3) (a) of the 
Employees' Provident Funds Act 1952. The writ petition 
was dismissed with costs. It is against this order that the 
appellant has come to this Court. 
Held 
(i) tllat a factory is an · "establishment" within the 
meaning of s. 1 (3) (a) of the Act if it satisfies the requirements 
of the section, namely, (I) that its one or all industries fall 
under Schedule I of the Act, (2) that it satisfies the numerical · 
strength as prescribed under the section. 
(ii) that the character of the dominant .or primary 
industry will determine the question of the application ofa. 1 
(3) {a) if a factory carries on both the dominant and 
subsidiary industries. 
· 
(iii) That if the factory runs more industries than one 
all ?f which arc independent of uch other, s. I '(3) (a) will 
J96!J 
. AprU 9 
1963 
AuociaJ1tl ltulustrW 
(Pl Lid. 
v, 
RtgiotUJ{ Protidnit 
F1md ComrnissUrnr, 
ll 1ral4 Trioatulmn 
906 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964] VOL. 
apply to the factory even if one or more, but n.>t all, of the 
industries run by it fall under Shedule l. 
(iv) 
that neither the tile indust1y was dmninant nor 
the engineering industry was subsidiary; rather 
both the 
industries were independent of each other. 
(v) 
that the factory of the appellant will be deemed to 
be a composite factory and the provisions of s. I (3) (a) will 
be attracted as one of its industries i. e. engineering industry, 
falls under Schedule I. 
TM Regional PtoviMnt Fund Commi•irioner, Btnnbay v. 
Shree Kriahna Metal Manufacturing Co. 
Bhandara [1962] 
Supp.3 S. C. R. 815, approved. 
CIVIL APPELLATE jURlSDICTroN : Civil Appeal 
No. 324 of 1962. 
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated 
August 8, 1960 of t.he Kcrala High Coi:rt, io 0. P. 
No. 97 of 1953. 
G. B. Pai, J. B. DaUn.chanji, 0. 0. Mathur 
and Ravimder Narain, for the appellant. 
S. V. Gupte, Additi-Onal Solicitor.General of 
India, 
R. 
Ganapathy Iyer, P. D. Menon and 
R.H. Dhebar, for the respondent. 
1963. 
April 9. 
The Judgment of the Court 
was delivered by 
GAJENDRAOADKJ.R J.-.'..The 
short 
question 
which arises io this apl'Cal is whether the factory 
run by the appellant, the Associated Industries· (P) 
· Ltd., Qµlion, falls within s. l (3) of the employees' 
Provident Funds Act, 1952 (No. 19 of 1952) (here· 
inafter called 
'the Act'). The appellant is a 
Company which runs a tile factory and an engineer-
. ing works at Qpilon. The tile factory began its 
career in July, 1943, and the engineering works. in 
• 
• 
---
• 
,, 
2 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS · 907 
September, 1950. It is common ground· that these 
/96J 
two industries are separate and distinct and that 
· 
ed 
C 
d 
Asjo(iatitl lndi.utri11 
they are carri 
on by the same ompany an on 
\P) Ltd. 
the same premises. It is also common ground that 
•· 
Regional PrOvitl1ril 
a. licence issued under the Factories Act, 1948, has .. Fund Lommissinrur 
been issued to the appellant . for the entire premises 
K"at. Triva1idrom 
and it is under this licence that the said premi.ses are 
Gajmdrat•dk•• J. 
allowecl to be used as one factory under the said Act 
and the rules framed thereunder. 
It appears that the respondent; the Regional 
Provident Fund Commissioner, Vanchiyoor, Trivan-
drum, intimated to the appellant on March IO, 1953, 
that the Act as well as •he scheme framed under it 
were applicable to the appellant's factory, and so
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.