2013 (11) TMI 655 - HC - Indian Laws

Classification of industry - Whether petitioner s industry which makes products from desiccated or dry/brown coconuts is covered under the entry Fruit and Vegetable Preservation Industry as found in Schedule-I of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 - Held that - fresh fruits and vegetables being household articles of everyday use for the table, these will have to be construed in the popular sense, meaning the sense in which every householder will understand them - ripend coconut is neither a fresh fruit nor vegetable. The watery coconut is no doubt a ripend coconut used for several purposes like offerings to a deity in a Hindu temple being broken or used on auspicious occasions or used in preparation of the daily table food or in confectionary like biscuits or in the extraction of oil when it is fresh or dried kernel. When a person in the commercial market goes and asks for coconut no one will consider brown coconut to be vegetable or fresh fruit, much less a green fruit. No householder would purchase it as a fruit - dry brown coconut cannot be said to be a fruit and that meaning has to be taken for interpretation of the relevant entry of the EPF Act. The issue in this case is not free from difficulties because coconut is a natural product which is sold in different forms and for different purposes, as stated above, however in my opinion, a dry brown coconut definitely is not a fruit as it is not so understood in common parlance and which meaning has to also apply for interpretation of the relevant entry in the EPF Act - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of whether coconut is considered a fruit under the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the order of the Employees' Provident Funds Appellate Tribunal, which classified the petitioner's industry, dealing with products from desiccated or dry/brown coconuts, under the entry "Fruit and Vegetable Preservation Industry" in the EPF Act. The main issue was whether coconut should be categorized as a fruit. The court noted that coconut is sold in various forms and used for different purposes. The critical question was whether the petitioner's industry falls within the definition of a "fruit" industry as per the EPF Act.

The court examined different interpretations of the term "coconut" under various statutes but emphasized that the specific classification under the EPF Act had not been previously decided. Referring to a Supreme Court judgment, the court concluded that, in common parlance, a dry brown coconut is not considered a fruit. The court highlighted that interpreting the term "coconut" and "fruit" should be done in layman's language, as observed in previous judgments.

The respondents argued that coconut should be considered a fruit based on a Supreme Court judgment emphasizing a purposive interpretation of social welfare legislation. However, the court held that this argument did not support the classification of a dry brown coconut as a fruit under the EPF Act. The court stressed that any strained interpretation should be avoided unless explicitly stated by the legislature.

Ultimately, the court allowed the writ petition, quashing the Appellate Tribunal's order and restraining the respondents from taking coercive action against the petitioner under the EPF Act. Each party was directed to bear their own costs, concluding the judgment on the interpretation of whether coconut qualifies as a fruit under the EPF Act.