THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, BOMBAY versus SHREE KRISHNA METAL MANUFACTURING CO., BHANDARA

Citation: [1962] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 815 · Decided: 14-03-1962 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

-' 
3 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND 
COMMISSIONER, BOMBAY 
v. 
' 
815 
SHREE KRISHNA METAL MANUFACTORING 
CO., BHANDARA 
(P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR and K. N. WANCHOo,JJ.) 
Construction-Rules 
of Grammer-Oontext-Oomposite 
factory-Different industries~Whether "factory'' -Determinative 
industry, which is-Employees' 
Provident Funds Act, 1952 
(19 ~' 1952), ss. 1(3)(a), (2)(g), Schedule I. 
The respondent· company in the first appeal carried on 
the business of manufac.turing brass, copper and 'kasa' circular 
sheets for manufacrnring utensils therefrom, milling paddy, 
a fiour mill and a saw mill in the same compound, it had a 
rolling mill for the first item of its business and bad other mills 
for the other for each of which it employed different set 
of workmen, 
but 
there were common clerks and other 
employees for the entire business. When the Employees Provi· 
dent Funds Act came in to force the company was required 
to comply with its terms. It challenged the applicability of 
the Act to it successfully by way of a writ petition before the 
High Court of Bombay at Nagpur. 
The respondent in the second appeal were mills which 
manufactured Hydrogenated vegetable oil. They also manu· 
factured tin containers for marketing and storing and its 
product in a separate establishment in which were employed 
0 nly 31 workmen as against 211 employed for the manufac· 
ture of oil. The mills were also asked to comply with the Act, 
but contested the applicability of the Act to their industry 
which was manufacture of oil and not tin containers. They 
also successfully challenged the order of the appellant against 
them by a writ petition before the High Court of Bombay, 
Nagpur Bench. 
In both the appeals it was contended that 
each of the respondents was a 'factory' within the meaning 
ofs.1(3)(a) of the Act and that the High Court was in error 
in construing it otherwise. 
Held, that the fact that 1he Act was beneficicnt piece 
of legislation aimed at p~omoting the welfare of the emp~• 
must be borne in miad in construing it and that there was no 
warrant in the language or context to read into or imply into 
s.1(3)(a) the sense of exclusive engagement in the 3chedule 
Ma1ch 14. 
·rht u,11iDflol 
Procid< nl Fund 
Commissio11tf, 
~01116'!1' 
v. 
Shire K,iJJmo MtloJ 
MormftUluring Cr., 
lllundora 
816 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1962] SUPP. 
industry and that composite factories wrre well within the 
1neaning of 'factory' \vhich \Vas comprehensively dtfined by 
s.2(g) and later made clearer hy the amrndment by which 
"establishn1ents" 
\\·ere included 
\\·ithin 
the meaning of 
1factory '. 
llcltl, f'11rthrr, that in s.1(3)(a) the qualilication •in which 
fifty or rnorc persons arc ernploycd' though lt inunediatcly 
followed the words •industry' specified Schedule I, properly 
applied to 'factory' which proceeded the latter words and 
that the applicability of the ordinary rules of grammer to a 
section is to be detennind by the context and by reference to 
other relative provisions of the Act. 
Hr,ld, further, that the expression 
'engaged 
in any 
industry sptcificd in Sch.I' n1eans priinarily or tnainly engaged 
in any industry a.s contrasted ,vith incidentally and in that 
~ense minor or sub:)i<liary activities for the purpose of feeding 
the main industry would 11ot detenuinc the character of the 
industry \vith reference to the Schedule. 
\Vhcn t\\·o cons-
tructions arc possible each of \vhich leads to some anomolies 
that which is on the \Yholc consistent \vith comtnon sense and 
the current understanding of the expression used should be 
preferred. 
·Held, also that the respondent in the fint appeal was 
commercially engaged in a Scheduled industry among others 
and the Act was applicable to it; further held that the respon-
dent in the second appeal was mainly engaged in an industry 
not included in the Schedule but was engaged incidentally and 
only for the feeding that industry in manufacturing containers 
and hence did not co1nc \vithin the Act. 
CIVIL APPELLATE J UUIBDICTIO!'l : Civil Appeals 
Nos. 361 and 387 of 1959. 
Appeals from the judgment and ordor dated 
March 19•i7, of the Bombay High Court at :N'agpur 
in Misc. Petn. Nos. 282 and 335 of 1955. 
B. Sen and P. D .• 'ltenan. for tho appellants. 
I. N. Shroff, for 
the respondent (in C. A. 
No. 361/59). 
A. V. V i8wanatlu1 Sa11tri and V. J. 111 erchuut, 
for respondent (in C. A. No: 387 of 195\l). 
3 s.c.tt. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 811 

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