http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5  

PETITIONER: ANDHRA UNIVERSITY ETC.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER OF ANDHRA PRAfESH AND A

DATE OF JUDGMENT08/10/1985

BENCH: ERADI, V. BALAKRISHNA (J) BENCH: ERADI, V. BALAKRISHNA (J) REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J) KHALID, V. (J)

CITATION:  1986 AIR  463            1985 SCR  Supl. (3) 582  1985 SCC  (4) 509        1985 SCALE  (2)752

ACT:      Employes’ Provident  Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, sections  1(3)(a), 2(1-C),  2(g) and  2(a), scope  of - Whether  the   establishments  namely,  the  Departments  of Publications  and   Press  of   the   Andhra   and   Osmania Universities are "factories" and their activities fall under "manufacture"  and   therefore  they  are  governed  by  the provisions of  the said  Act -  Interpretation of  the  word "establishment" in section 2-A.

HEADNOTE:      The  Employees’   Provident  Funds   and  Miscellaneous Provisions Act  applies to  every establishment  which is  a "factory" engaged  in and "industry" specified in Schedule I and  in   which  20   or  more  persons  are  employed.  The expressions  "manufacture"  and  "factory"  are  defined  in section 2(1-C)  and 2(g)  of  the  Act.  The  establishments namely, the Departments of Publications and Press of the two Universities  each   employing  100  persons,  run  printing presses, where  the work of printing of text books, journals and magazines  for the  various constituent  and  affiliated colleges as  well as  of various items of stationery such as admission forms to colleges, hostels and examinations, forms of memo  of parks,  hall’ tickets, answer books, syllabi for various colleges  and departments,  registers, receipt books for colleges  and hostels  and letter heads for Universities carried out. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner called upon the  two Universities  to submit  their monthly returns and remit  the amounts  of contribution  as required  by the provisions  of  the  scheme  covered  under  the  Employees’ Provident Funds  and Miscellaneous  Provisions Act. Two writ petitions were therefore, filed by the appellants separately challenging the  legality and validity of the notices issued to  them   by  the  Regional  Provident  Fund  Commissioner, contending (i)  that the Universities are purely educational institutions having a Dumber of departments, the main object of which  is to impart education to the youth of the country in  various   branches  of   Students,  and  therefore,  the Department of  Publications and Press which is intended only to cater the needs and requirement of the students cannot be regarded  either   as  a   "factory"  or  as  an  "industry"

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5  

attracting the  provisions of the Act; ant (11) that the two Universities had their own provident 583 fund schemes  for their  employees and  therefore, there was justification for  subjecting them  to the provisions of the Act. A  learned Single Judge of the High Court accepting the said conventions  allowed the  writ petitions.  However,  on appeals filed  by the  Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Andhra Pradesh, the Division Bench by two separate judgments set aside the judgments of the learned Single Judge and held that the Department of Publications and Press of each of the two Universities  is an  "establishment" which  is a factory engaged in  an industry  specified in  Schedule I,  in which more than  20 persons were employed and hence the provisions of the  Act ant  the Scheme  were applicable  in respect  of these Departments. Hence the appeals by special leave.      Dismissing the appeals, the Court, ^      HELD :  1.1 To attract the provisions of the Employees’ Provident Funds  and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, two tests namely,  whether  there  is  an  establishment  which  is  a "factory" engaged  in any  of the  scheduled industries  and whether  20  or  more  persons  are  employed  in  the  said establishment must be fulfilled. [587 F]      1.2 Printing  is one  of the  industries  specified  in Schedule I of the Act ant it is admitted that much more than 20 persons  are employed  in the  concerned establishment of the two Universities [588 A]      1.3 The  Departments  of  Publications  ant  Press  are "factories" as  defined in  clause (g)  of section  2 of the Act. Under the  definition, "factory" means any premises, in any part  of which  a manufacturing process is being carried on. The  Printing of  text books, journals, registers, forms ant  various   items  of   stationery   clearly   constitute "manufacture" within  the meaning  of the said expression as defined in  clause (1-C)  of section 2 of the Act. [587 G-H; 588 A]      1.4 It  is therefore clear that all the requirements of clause   3(a) of  section (l) of the Act are fully satisfied in the cases and hence the decision of the Division Bench of the High  Court upholding the validity of the notices issued by the  respondent, Regional provident Fund Commissioner, is perfectly correct ant justified. [588 A-B]      Visva Bharati  v. Regional Provident fund Commissioner, West Bengal, [1983] 1 L.L.J. 332 overruled.      2.1 In  construing the  provisions  of  the  Employees’ Provident funds ant Miscellaneous Provisions Act, it must be 584 borne in  mint that  it is  a  beneficent  piece  of  Social Welfare legislation aimed at promoting and securing the well being of the employees ant the Court will not adopt a narrow interpretation which  will have  the effect of defeating the very object ant purpose of the Act. [587 A-B]      2.2 Section  2-A of the Act was inserted merely for the purposes of  clarifying the position that the Act applies to composite factories. It is not the intentment of the section to  lay   down  even   by  remotest   implication  that   an establishment, which  is a   factory  engaged in an industry specified in  Schedule I  will not liable for coverage under the Act  merely because  it is part of a larger organisation carrying on  some Of  the activties  also which may not fall within the scope of the Act. [586 G-H; 587 A]

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5  

JUDGMENT:      CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 126 of 1973.      From the  Judgment and  Order  dated  21.12.70  of  the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Appeal No. 396 of 1971.                             AND      Civil Appeal No. 204 of 1973.      From the  Judgment and  Order dated  25.2.1972  of  the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Appeal No. 392 of 1971.      B.R.L. Iyengar,  G.N. Rao,  T.C. Gupta  and Attar Singh for the Appellant.      M.S. Gujral,  C.V. Subba  Rao,  R.N.  Poddar  and  T.C. Sharma for the Respondents.      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by      BALAKRISHNA ERADI,  J. These  two appeals  are directed against two  judgments of  the  Andhra  Pradesh  High  Court dismissing two Writ Petitions filed by the appellants herein namely, the  Andhra University  ant the  Osmania  University challenging the  legality and validity of the notices issued to the  two Universities  by  the  Regional  Provident  Fund Commissioner of  Andhra Pradesh  intimating  them  that  the Departments  of  Publications  and  Press  wherein  printing presses were  being run by the two Universities, were liable for coverage under the Employees’ Provident 585 Funds and  Miscellaneous Provisions  Act (hereinafter called the ’Act  and Scheme’) and calling upon the two Universities to submit   their  monthly returns  and remit the amounts of contribution as required by the provisions of the Scheme. me appeals have  been filed  on the  basis of  certificates  of fitness granted  by the  High Court under Article 133 (l)(c) of the Constitution.      The common contention taken by the appellants herein in the two  Writ Petitions was that the Universities are purely educational institutions having a number of departments, the main object  of which is to impart education to the youth of the  country  in  various  branches  of  studies,  that  the Department of  Publications and Press which is intended only to cater  the needs  and requirements of the students cannot be regarded  either as  a ’factory’  or as an ’industry’ and the provisions  of the  Act are  not therefore, attracted in respect of the said department. It was also submitted in the Writ Petitions  that the  two  Universities  had  their  own provident fund  schemes for  their employees and hence there was no  justification for  subjecting them to the provisions of the  Act. A  learned  Single  Judge  of  the  High  Court accepted the  contention of  the two  Universities that  the Department of  Publications and  Press could not be regarded as an ’industry’ and accordingly held that the provisions of the Act were not attracted. However, on appeals filed by the Regional Provident  Fund Commissioner, Andhra Pradesh before a Division  Bench of  the High  Court, the Division Bench by two separate  judgments  set  aside  the  judgments  of  the learned  Single  Judge  and  held  that  the  Department  of Publications and Press of each of the two Universities is an establishment’ which  is a  factory engaged  in an  industry specified in  Schedule I, in which more than 20 persons were employed and  hence the provisions of the Act and the Scheme were applicable  in respect  of these  Departments. In these appeals, the  appellants namely,  the two Universities, have challenged  the  correctness  of  the  aforesaid  conclusion recorded by the Division Bench of the High Court.      It is common ground that the Department of Publications and Press of the two Universities (appellants) runs printing presses, where  the work of printing of text books, journals

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5  

and magazines  for the  various constituent  and  affiliated colleges as  well as  of various items of stationery such as admission forms to colleges, hostels and examinations, forms of memo  of marks,  hall tickets,  answer books, syllabi for various colleges  and departments,  registers, receipt books for colleges  and hostels  and letter heads for Universities is carried out. About 100 persons are employed in connection with the said activity in the Department of Publications and Press of each University. 586      Section 1(3)(a)  of the  Act lays  down that subject to the provisions contained in Section 16 (those provisions are admittedly not  applicable to  the cases before us), the Act applies to  every establishment which is a ’factory’ engaged in any ’industry’ specified in Schedule I and in which 20 or more persons are employed. The expression "factory" has been defined in  Section 2(g) 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."      Section 2(1-c)  defines "manufacture" or ’manufacturing process’ as  meaning  ’any  process  for  making,  altering, repairing, ornamenting, finishing, packing, oiling, washing, cleaning, breaking  up, demolishing or otherwise treating or adapting any  article or  substance with  a view to its use, sale, transport, delivery or disposal."      It was  not disputed  before the  High Court  that  the Department of Publications and Press of the two Universities were ’establishments’ and the only contention urged was that the said  Departments were  not ’factories’ and the activity carried  on   therein  did  not  constitute  an  ’industry’. However, before  this Court  a new point was urged on behalf of the  appellants that  for the purposes of determining the applicability of  the Act  the  entire  University  must  be treated as  an establishment and if the University cannot be said to be a factory engaged in an industry, there cannot be any question  of coverage  under the Act and the Scheme. For sustaining this  contention support was sought to be derived from Section 2-A of the Act, which is in the following terms :-           "2-A Establishment  to include all departments and           branches -           For the  removal of  doubts, it is hereby declared           that where  an establishment consists of different           departments or  has branches,  whether situate  in           the same  place or  in different  places, all such           departments or  branches shall  be treated as part           of the same establishment."      We are  unable to  see how  this provision  is  of  any assistance to  the appellants.  Section 2-A  was inserted in the Act  merely for  the purposes of clarifying the position that the  Act applies  to composite  factories.  It  is  not intentment of the section to lay 587 down even  by remotest  implication that  an  establishment, which is  a factory  engaged in  an  industry  specified  in Schedule I  will not  be liable  for coverage  under the Act merely because  it is part of a larger organisation carrying on some  other activities also which may not fall within the scope of  the Act.  In construing the provisions of the Act, we have  to bear  in mind  that it is a beneficient piece of Social Welfare  legislation aimed  at promoting and securing the well being of the employees and the Court will not adopt a narrow  interpretation  which  will  have  the  effect  of defeating the very object and purpose of the Act. Once it is

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

found that  there is  an establishment  which is a ’factory’ engaged  in  an  ’industry’  specified  in  Schedule  I  and employing 20 or more persons, the provisions of the Act will get attracted to the case and it makes no difference to this legal position  that the  establishment is  run by  a larger organisation which  may  be  carrying  on  other  additional activities falling outside the Act.      Our attention  was drawn  to a  decision of  a  learned Single Judge  of the Calcutta High Court in Visva Bharati v. Regional Provident  Fund Commissioner, West Bengal, [1983] 1 L.L.J. 332  wherein it  was held  that the provisions of the Act  were  inapplicable  in  respect  of  a  "Silpa  Sadan", Agricultural Farm  and a  Hospital run  by the Visva-Bharati University. The  learned Judge  was of the view that "if the University as  an establishment  does  not  come  under  the provisions and  or the  purview of  the Act,  the  different branches  or   departments  of   the  University  which  the University empowered  and or  entitled to maintain under the provision of  the Visva Bharati Act cannot be brought within the mischief of the Act." We have no hesitation to hold that the aforesaid  view expressed  by the  learned Judge  is not correct or  sound and  that the  said decision  does not lay down correct law.      As already  indicated, the  true tests to be applied is whether there  is an  establishment  which  is  a  ’factory’ engaged tn any of the scheduled industries and whether 20 or more persons  are employed in the said establishment. If the answer is  in the affirmative, the provisions of the Act are clearly attracted.      In the  cases before  us there cannot be any doubt that the establishments  namely, the  Departments of Publications and Press  are ’factories’  as  defined  in  clause  (g)  of Section 2  of the  Act. Under  the said  definition  factory means any  premises in  any part  of which any manufacturing process is  being carried  on. me  printing of  text  books, journals, registers,  forms and  various items of stationery clearly constitute ’manufacture’ within the 588 meaning of the said expression as defined in clause (1-c) of Section 2 of the Act. That printing is one of the industries specified in  the Schedule is not in dispute. It is also not disputed that  much more than 20 persons are employed in the concerned establishments  of the  two Universities. Thus all the requirements  of clause  (3) (a) of Section 1 of the Act are fully  satisfied in these cases and hence the conclusion recorded by  the  High  Court  that  the  establishments  in question are  liable for coverage under the Act is perfectly correct and justified.      It follows  that these  appeals are  totally devoid  of merits. They will accordingly stand dismissed with costs. S.R.                                      Appeals dismissed. 589