9911796707
TMI Blog1963 (4) TMI 87X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also common ground that a licence issued under the Factories Act, 1948, has been issued to the appellant for the entire premises and it is under this licence that the said premises arc allowed 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, Trivandrum, intimated to the appellant on March 10, 1953, that the Act as well as the scheme framed under it were applicable to the appellant's factory, and so, the appellant was called upon to deposit in the SubOffice of the Imperial Bank of India the contribu- tions and administrative charges as required by s. 6 of the Act. The same requisition was repeated on March 25, 1953 and April 24, 1953. The appellant disputed the correctness of the view taken by the respondent that the appellant's factory fell under the purview of the Act, and so, it refused to comply with the respondent's requisition. Thereupon, the respondent wrote to the appellant on June 16, 1953 informing it that appropriate action would be taken to compel the appellant to make the necessary deposit and submit returns as required by the Act in case it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or more persons are employed; the numerical requirement of 50 has been reduced to 20 by an Amending Act of 1960. Section (2)(g)(f1) defines a 'factory' as meaning any premises, including the precincts thereof, in any part of which a manufacturing process is being carried on or is ordinarily so carried on, whether with the aid of power or-without the aid of power; and s. 2 (i) defines an 'industry' as meaning - any industry specified in Schedule I, and includes any other industry added to the Schedule by notification under section 4. Section 6 prescribes for the levy of contributions and deals with other matters which may be provided for in Schemes; and in accordance with the provisions of this section, the Employees' Provident Fund Scheme of 1952 has been framed. In the case of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Bombay, (A I.R. 1962 S. C. 1536) this Court has held that s. 1(3)(a) does not lend itself to the construction that it is confined to factories exclusively engaged in any industry specified in Schedule I. It was observed in that connection that when the legislature has described factories as factories engaged in any industry, it did not intend t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... try will determine the question as to whether the factory is an establishment under s. 1(3)(a) or not. If the dominant and primary industry falls under Sch. I, the fact that the subsidiary industries do not fall under Sch. I will not help to exclude the application of s. 1(3) (a). If the dominant and primary industry does not fall under Sch. 1, but one or more subsidiary, incidental, minor and feeding industries fall under Sch. I, then S. 1(3)(a) will not apply. If the factory runs more industries than one all of which are independent of each other and constitute separate and distinct industries, s. 1(3)(a) will apply to the factory even if one or more., but-not all, of the industries run by the factory fall under Sch. I. The question about the subsidiary, minor, or feeding industries can legitimately arise only where it is shown that the factory is really started for the purpose of running one primary industry and has undertaken other subsidiary industries only for the purpose of subserving and feeding the purposes and objects of the primary industry ; in such a case, these minor industries merely serve as departments of the primary industry; otherwise if the industries run by a f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on, there is no scope for the argument in the present case that the engineering industry which the appellant runs is not the primary or dominant industry but the manufacture of tiles is. Mr. Pai attempted to argue that though engineering industry run by the appellant's factory falls under Sch. I, it employs only 24 workers whereas the tiles industry employs more than 50. He also relied on that fact that the tiles factory was started in 1943 and the engineering works in 1950, and his argument was that judged in the light of the fact that the tiles industry was started first, as well as considered by the application of the test of the strength of the employees working in the two industries, tiles industry should be treated to be the main, dominant and primary industry of the factory, and so, the factory, as a whole, should be held to be outside s. 1(3) (a). In our opinion, this argument is plainly untenable. If the tiles industry and the engineering industry are independent of each other, then no question arises as to which is principal and which is subsidiary. As soon as it is shown that the factory is carrying on two industries independent of each other one of which falls under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
