http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6  

PETITIONER: SOUTH GUJARAT ROOFING TILES MANUFACTURERSASSOCIATION AND ANR

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER

DATE OF JUDGMENT20/10/1976

BENCH: GUPTA, A.C. BENCH: GUPTA, A.C. CHANDRACHUD, Y.V. GOSWAMI, P.K.

CITATION:  1977 AIR   90            1977 SCR  (1) 878  1976 SCC  (4) 601  CITATOR INFO :  E&F        1978 SC  22  (7)  R          1980 SC 150  (12)

ACT:             Minimum Wages Act, 1948, Entry 22 Explanation Part I  of         Schedule,  construction of word includes--Whether  potteries         Industry  includes manufacture of Mangalore pattern  roofing         tiles.

HEADNOTE:             By  a Notification issued under the Minimum  Wages  Act,         1948,  the  Government fixed the minimum rates of  wages  in         respect of potteries industry, on the basis of a committee’s         report.  Later, proceedings were started against the  second         appellant, a partnership firm .manufacturing Mangalore  type         roofing  tiles,  on the complaint of an  inspector  alleging         that  the partners of the firm had failed to  produce  their         muster roll and the wages register for his examination.  The         Magistrate acquitted the appellant holding that Entry 22 did         not  cover roofing tiles.  The High Court affirmed  the  ac-         quittal  on merits, but opined that manufacture  of  roofing         tiles was included in the potteries industry.             The appellants contended that the Articles mentioned  in         the  explanation were exhaustive of the objects  covered  by         entry  22,  and did not cover roofing tiles, while  the  re-         spondent State contended that the Explanation "includes" not         only the objects mentioned therein, but other articles  like         roofing tiles.         Allowing the appeal, the Court,             HELD:  (1)  The word "includes" is generally used  as  a         word  of  extension,  but has been used here  the  sense  of         means’;  this  is the only construction that the  word  can.         bear  in  the context.  In that sense it is not  a  word  of         extension,  but limitation; it is exhaustive of the  meaning         which must be given to potteries industry for the purpose of         Entry 22. [882 G-H]         Dilworth  v.  Commissioner of Stamps  (1899  A.C.  105--106)         applied.             (2)  The manufacture of Mangalore pattern roofing  tiles         is  outside the purview of Entry 22.  The explanation  could         not  possibly have been introduced to extend the meaning  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6  

       potteries  industry or the articles listed therein added  ex         abundanti cautela. [882 D-F; 883 A]

JUDGMENT:         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1947 of 1975.             Appeal  by  Special Leave from the Judgment   and  Order         dated 9-10-1975 of the Gujarat High  Court in Special  Civil         Application No. 1339/75.             V.M.  Tarkunde,  P.H.  Parekh, Miss  Manju   Jatley  and         (Miss) Mardk Tarkunde, for the Appellants.         D.V. Patel and M.N. Shroff, for Respondent No. 1.         K.L. Hathi and P.C. Kapur, for Respondent No. 2.         879         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by             GUPTA, J.--The first appellant is an association of  the         manufacturers  of Mangalore pattern roofing tiles  in  south         Gujarat area,  the other appellant, a partnership firm, is a         member  of the association.   The question that falls to  be         determined in this appeal by special leave is whether  entry         22  added  by the Gujarat Government by  notification  dated         March  27,  1967 to Part 1 of the Schedule  to  the  Minimum         Wages  Act,  1948 covers Mangalore  pattern  roofing  tiles.         Entry   22 reads as follows;         "Employment in potteries Industry.             Explanation:   For the purpose of this  entry  potteries         industry includes the manufacture of the following  articles         of pottery, namely:--                         (a)     Crockery                         (b)     Sanitary appliances and fittings                         (c)     Refractories                         (d)     Jars                         (e)     Electrical accessories                         (f)     Hospital ware                         (g)     Textile accessories             ....                         (h)     Toys                         (i)     Glazed Tiles"         We may also refer to certain other provisions of the Minimum         wages Act which3 provide the context to the question arising         for decision. Section 2(g) defines "scheduled employment" as         meaning  "any  employment specified in the Schedule  or  any         process or blanch of work forming part of such  employment".         The  schedule  is in two parts.   Part 1I which  relates  to         employment  in  agriculture  only As not  relevant  for  the         purpose of this appeal.   Section 3 authorises the appropri-         ate Government to fix or revise the minimum  rates  of wages         payable  to employees in scheduled employments.  Section   5         prescribes the procedure for fixing  and  revising   minimum         wages.  In fixing minimum rates of  wages  in   respect   of         any  scheduled Section 5 prescribes the procedure for fixing         and  revising  minimum wages.   In fixing minimum  rates  of         wages in respect of any scheduled. employment for the  first         time  or in revising the rates so fixed,    the  appropriate         Government must either  appoint committees  to  hold, neces-         sary enquiries and advise it in this regard, or publish  its         proposals   in   the   matter   for   the   information   of         persons  .likely  to be affected thereby.    The  Government         will fix or revise the minimum rates  of wages after consid-         ering  the advice of the committees or  the  representations         received  in regard to the proposals published, as the  case         may be.   Section 7 empowers the appropriate Government also         to  appoint an advisory board for coordinating the  work  of         the  committees appointed under section 5, and advising  the         Government  generally in the matter of fixing  and  revising

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 6  

       minimum rates of wages.   Section 19         880         authorises  the  Government to appoint  Inspectors  for  the         purposes  of  the  Act, Sections 22 and 22-A  lay  down  the         penalties  for  paying to an employee any amount  less  than         what is due-to him under the Act, or contravening any provi-         sion  of the Act or any rule or order made  thereunder;  the         punishment may extend to imprisonment for  six months with a         fine  of Rs. 500/-.   Under section 27 the appropriate  Gov-         ernment after giving by notification in the official gazette         not  less than three months’ notice of its intention to  add         to either Part of the Schedule any employment in respect  of         which-it is of opinion that minimum rates of wages should be         fixed,  add  such  employment to  the  schedule  by  another         notification  and  the schedule in its  application  to  the         State concerned shall be deemed to be amended accordingly.             Before  proceeding to consider the  rival   contentions,         we   may  briefly state the facts in  the  background.    On         November   13,   1966  the  Gujarat  Government   issued   a         notification under section 27 declaring its intention to add         "employment in potteries industry" with an ’Explanation’  to         Part  I  of the Schedule to the Minimum wages  Act,  and  by         notification  dated March 27, 1967 the entry was  added   as         entry  No. 22.   Later a committee was appointed under  sec-         tion  5  (1  ) to fix minimum rates of  wages  in  potteries         industry.   The committee submitted its recommendations some         time  in 1968.    It appears from the letter dated July  10,         1968  addressed to the Government by the advisory  committee         forwarding its report that the Committee had not taken  into         consideration  roofing tiles in the   recommendations  made.         By a notification dated January 8, 1969 the Government fixed         the minimum rates of wages in respect of potteries  industry         on  the basis of the committee’s report.On March 25, 1970  a         proceeding  was started against the second appellant on  the         complaint of an Inspector alleging that the partners of  the         firm  had failed to. produce for his examination the  muster         roll and  the  wages  Register.  The appellant was acquitted         by  the  magistrate  who held that entry 22  did  not  cover         roofing tiles and as such the Act was not applicable to  the         industry of the accused.   The State preferred an appeal to,         the  High Court against the order of acquittal.    The  High         Court affirmed the acquittal on merits but observed that the         manufacture  of roofing tiles was included in entry 22.   In         1974  the  Gujarat Government  appointed  another  committee         under  section 5’ of the Act to revise the minimum wages  in         potteries  industry.  This time the  committee  treated  the         manufacture of roofing tiles as included in item 22 and sent         its  report to the Government.   On May 12, 1975  the  State         Government  issued a notification accepting the  recommenda-         tions of the committee and gave effect to the revised  rates         from the next day, i.e. May 13, 1975.   The appellants filed         a  writ petition in the Gujarat High Court  challenging  the         validity  of  the notification dated May 12, 1975.   By  its         order  dated  October 9, 1975 the High Court  dismissed  the         writ  petition on the view that "Mangalore  pattern  roofing         tiles  manufactories  would be covered’ within  the  entry".         This  is how the scope of entry 22 arises for  consideration         in this appeal.             The  question  turns  on a true  construction   of   the         Explanation  to entry 22 which says that for the purpose  of         this   entry  potteries industry "includes" the  manufacture         of the nine "articles of pottery"         881         specified therein.  Pottery in a wide sense will take in all         objects  that are made from clay and hardened by fire,  from

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 6  

       crude earthen pots to delicate porcelain.  Mr. Patel appear-         ing for the respondent, State of Gujarat, contends that  the         Explanation indicates that potteries industry in entry 22 is         intended to cover all possible articles  of  pottery includ-         ing  Mangalore  pattern  roofing tiles.   Referring  to  the         well-known  use  of  the word  ’include’  in  interpretation         clauses  to  extend  the meaning of words and phrases occur-         ring in the body of the  statute, Mr. Patel submits that the         Explanation,  when  it says that   potteries  industry  ’in-         cludes’  the  nine named objects, what is meant is  that  it         includes  not only these objects but other articles of  pot-         tery  as well. It is true that ’includes’ is generally  used         as a word of extension, but the meaning of a word or  phrase         is extended when it is said to include things that would not         properly fall within its ordinary  connotation. We may refer         to the often-quoted observation of  Lord Watson  in Dilworth         v. Commissioner of Stamps, (1) that when the word  ’include’         is used in interpretation clauses to enlarge the meaning  of         words or phrases in the statute "these words or phrases must         be construed as comprehending, not only such things as  they         signify  according  to their natural import but  also  those         things  which the interpretation  clause declares that  they         shall  include".  Thus where  ’includes’  has  an  extending         force,  it adds to the word or phrase a meaning  which  does         not  naturally belong to it.  It is difficult to agree  that         ’includes’  as used in the Explanation to entry 22 has  that         extending  force.  The Explanation says that for the purpose         of entry 22, potteries industry includes the manufacture  of         the nine "articles of pottery" specified in the Explanation.         If  the  objects specified are also "articles  of  pottery",         then  these objects are already comprised in the  expression         "potteries industry".  It hardly makes any sense to say that         potteries  industry includes the manufacture of articles  of         pottery,  if  the intention  was to enlarge the  meaning  of         potteries industry in any way.             We  are  also unable to. agree with Mr. Patel  that  the         articles  specified  in the Explanation may have  been  men-         tioned out of  abundant caution to emphasize the  comprehen-         sive character of the  entry,  to indicate that all rarities         of  pottery  are included therein.  This.  argument,  though         more  plausible,  does  not also seem  acceptable’.   It  is         possible  that  one might have doubts. whether  things  like         refractories or electrical or textile accessories would pass         under   the   description pottery as that word  is  used  in         common parlance, but the Explanation also mentions  crockery         and  toys regarding which there could be hardly  any  doubt.         The  inclusion  in  the  list of  objects  which  are   well         recognised’  articles  of pottery makes it  plain  that  the         Explanation  was added to the entry not by way  of  abundant         caution.             The  contention  of Mr. Tarkunde for the  appellants  is         that  the articles mentioned in the Explanation were intend-         ed  to  be exhaustive of the objects covered  by  entry  22.         According to Mr. Tarkunde if the legislature wanted to bring         within  the  entry all possible  articles  of  pottery  then         there was hardly any point in mentioning only a few them  by         way of Explanation.  To this Mr. Patel’s reply is that it         (1) (1899) A.C. ’105-106.         882         is  well-known that where the legislature wants  to  exhaust         the  significance  of  the term defined, it  uses  the  word         ’means’ or the expression ’means and includes’, and that  if         the intention was to make the  list exhaustive, the legisla-         ture  would not have used the word  ’includes’ only.   We-do         not  think there could be any inflexible rule that the  word

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 6  

       ’include’  should  be  read always as a  word  of  extension         without  reference to the context.  Take for instance  entry         19 in the schedule which also has an Explanation .containing         the .word ’includes’.  Entry 19 is as follows:                              "Employment  in any tobacco  processing                       establishment, not covered under entry No. 3.                             Explanation.--For  the purpose  of  this                       entry,  the expression  "processing"  includes                       packing  or unpacking, breaking up,.  sieving,                       thrishing,  mixing, grading,  drying,   curing                       or  otherwise treating the tobacco  (including                       tobacco leaves and stems) in any manner."                       Entry 3 to which entry 19 refers reads:                              "Employment  in any tobacco  (including                       bidi making) manufactory."         It  is  clear from the Explanation to entry  19  that  there         could  be   no other way or manner of  "processing"  besides         what  is  stated  as included in  that  expression.   Though         include’  is generally used in interpretation clauses  as  a         word  of enlargement, in some cases the  context might  sug-         gest  a  different intention.  Pottery is an  expression  of         very  wide  import, embracing all objects made of  clay  and         hardened  by heat.  If it had been the legislature’s  inten-         tion  to  bring within  the entry all possible  articles  of         pottery, it was quite unnecessary to add an Explanation.  We         have  found that the Explanation  could  not  possibly  have         been introduced to extend the meaning  of  potteries  indus-         try or the articles listed therein added ex abundanti caute-         la.   It seems to us therefore that the legislature did  not         intend every  thing that the potteries industry tums out  to         be covered  by  the  entry. What then could be the  purpose.         of  the  Explanation ?  The Explanation says that,  for  the         purpose of entry 22, potteries industry ’includes’  manufac-         ture  of  the. nine articles of pottery named  therein.   It         seems  to us that the word ’includes’ has been used here  in         the   sense  of ’means’, this is the only construction  that         the word can bear in  the. context.  In that sense it is not         a word of extension, but limitation; it is exhaustive of the         meaning  which must be given to potteries industry  for  the         purpose of entry 22.  The use of the word ’includes’  in the         restrictive  sense is not unknown.  The observation of  Lord         Watson  in Dilworth v. Commissioner of Stamps,(1)  which  is         usually  referred  to on the use of ’include’ as a  word  of         extension,’  is followed by these lines: "But the  word  ’i-         nclude’  is susceptible of another construction,  which  may         become  imperative, if the context of the Act is  sufficient         to  show that it was not merely employed for the purpose  of         adding  to the natural significance of the words or  expres-         sions defined.   It may be equivalent to ’mean and include’,         and in that case it may afford an         ( 1899)A.C. 105--106         883         exhaustive  explanation of the meaning which, for  the  pur-         poses of the Act, must invariably be attached to these words         or expressions". It must therefore be held that the manufac-         ture  of   Mangalore  pattern roofing tiles is  outside  the         purview of entry 22.             The appeal is allowed with costs against respondent  no.         1, dated May 12, 1975 in so far as it applies to the  Manga-         lore  pattern roofing tiles is quashed.  The members of  the         first  appellant are permitted to withdraw any sum they  had         deposited in the Gujarat High Court pursuant to the order of         this Court made on April 2, 1976.         M.R,                                         Appeal allowed.         884

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 6