2014 (6) TMI 1066 - HC - Indian Laws

Classification of goods - Rusks - covered by Schedule 1 of the Employees Provident Funds etc. Act, 1952 or not - HELD THAT - The word 'Rusks' has been defined in Concise Oxford English Dictionary Eleventh Edition, Revised (Indian Edition) to mean a dry biscuit or a piece of twice-baked bread especially as prepared for use as baby food - Similar is the meaning attached to the word 'Rusks' in Collins Cobuild Advanced Learner's English Dictionary, New Edition as hard, dry biscuits that are given to babies and young children. Thus, Rusks can either be treated as biscuit or a bread both of each are covered under the above entry of Schedule 1 of the Act. Accordingly, any industry manufacturing Rusks would be covered by the provisions of the aforesaid Act. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to order by Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner
2. Interpretation of Schedule I of the Employees Provident Funds & etc. Act, 1952
3. Classification of industry manufacturing Rusks

Analysis:
1. The petitioners challenged the order dated 28.11.2013 by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Gorakhpur, and the consequential notice dated 9.5.2014. The order stated that the petitioners' small scale industry is covered by Schedule 1 of the Act and required compliance with its formalities.

2. The main contention was whether the petitioners' industry, manufacturing Rusks, falls under the entry in Schedule I of the Act. The specific entry in question includes "Biscuit-making industry including composite units making biscuits and products such as bread, confectionery, milk, and milk-powder." This entry was added in 1958 and covers industries engaged in the manufacture of biscuits, bread, confectionery, and milk products, including milk powder.

3. The Court examined the definition of "Rusks" from authoritative dictionaries, which described Rusks as dry biscuits or twice-baked bread, often used as baby food. The common understanding also treats Rusks as a type of bread. The judgment concluded that since Rusks can be considered either as biscuits or bread, both of which are covered under the relevant entry in Schedule 1, any industry manufacturing Rusks would be subject to the provisions of the Act. Therefore, the writ petition challenging the order was dismissed for lacking merit.