ANDHRA UNIVERSITY ETC.versusREGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND ANR.

     582

A                           ANDllllA UNIVERSITY ETC,
                                       v.
                  RF.GIOllAL PROVIDENT PUllD <XHIISSIO!llER OF
                            AND1111A PRADESll AND AN&.

                               OCTOBER 8, 1985
B
       [O. CHINNAPPA REDDY, V. BALAKIUSHNA ERADI AND V. KHALID, JJ.]

           Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions
     Act, sections l(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
c    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·

            The Faployeea' Provident Funda and Miscellaneous Provisions
     Act appliea to every eatabli1bment which is a "factory• engaged
     in and "industry" specified in Schedule I and in which 20 or more
lJ   persona are employed. The exprealiona "manufacture• and "factory"
     are defined in section 2(1-C) and 2(g) of the Act. The
     establiahments namely, the Departments of Publications and Press
     of the two Univerlitiea each employing 100 persona, run printing
     presaea, where the work of printing of text books, journals and
     magazinea for the various conatituant and affiliated colleges as
E    well as of various items of stationary such as admission forms to
     colleges, ho1tela and examinations, forms of memo of marks, hell
     tickets, 8D8118r bookl, ayllabi for various colleges and depart-
     ments., regiatera, receipt booka for colleges and hostela and
     letter heed8 for Univeraitiea is carried out. The Regional
     Provident Fund Collllliaaionar called upon the two Univeraitiea to
F    submit their monthly returns and remit the amounta of contribu-
     tion u required by the proviliona of the scheme covered under
     the Faployeea 1 Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act.
     Two writ petitions were therefore, filed by the appellants
     separately challeog1ng the legality and validity of the notices
     iHued to them by the Regional Provident Fund Coaaisaionar,
G    contending (i) that the Univerlitiea are purely educational
     institutions having a number of departmenta, the main object of
     which ia to impart education to the youth of the country in
     various bram:hea of atudents, and therefore, the Department of
     Publications and PrH~ which 1a intended only to cater the needa
     and requirements of the atudents cannot be regarded either aa a
H     "factory" or aa an "industry" attracting the provisions of the
     Act; and (11) that the two Univeraities had their own provident
                ANDHRA UNIVERSITY V• P.F. COMMR.              583

fUDd acbemea for their employees and therefore, there was no
juatification for subjecting them to the provisions of the Act. A A
leam.d Single Judge of the High Court accepting the said
contentioll8 allowed the writ petitions. However, on appeal.a filed
by the Bq1onal Providmt Fund Commiasiooer, Andhra Pradesh, the
Diviaion lleDch by two aeparate jwlgmellta set aside the jwigm!lnts
of the leaned Single Judge and held that the Department of
Publicat1oll8 and Preas of each of the two Uoiveraities ia an B
"establishment" which is a factory eogaged in an industry
apec1f1ed in Schedule I, in which more than 20 persOllS were
employed and hence the provisiOll8 of the Act and the Scheme were
applicable in respect of these Departments. llellce the appeals by
apeci.al leave.
                                                                    c
      Diami991ng tM app2&l.e, the Court,

       llBU> 1 l.l 'Io attract the provisious of the F.mployees'
Provident Funds and Miscellaoeoua Provisions Act, two teats
namely, whether there is an establishment which is a "factory"
eogaged iD an.y of the scheduled industries and whether 20 or more 0
persons are employP.d in the B&id eetabliabmeot 1111st be fulfilled.
[587 !i')

      l.2 Printi113 ia one of the industries specified in Schedule
I of the Act. and it is admitted that llllCh more than 20 peraons
are employed in the concerned establishment of the two Univer- E
sitiea. [588 A]

       l.3 The Departments of Publlcatioua and Press are
"factories" as defined in clause (g) of section 2 of the Act.
Under the·definition, "factory" means soy premiaes, in sn.y part
of vh1ch a 11181111facturi113 process is be1113 carried on. The
printi113 of text booka, journal.a, regiatera, forms and variowi F
itema of atationery clearly constitute "manufacture" within the
me•nlng of the said expreaaiou aa defined in clause (1-<:) of
section 2 of the Act. [587 ~; 588 A]

      1.4 It ia therefore clear that all the requirements of
clauae 3(a) of aection (l) of the Act are fully aatisfied in G
tbae caaea and hence the decision of the Division Bench of the
lligb Court uphold1113 the validity of the notices issued by the
rupoudent, llegional Provident Fund Counisaiooer, is perfectly
correct and juatifiedo [588 A-BJ

      Vina llbuati Vo llegioml l'Eov1deDt Jund ('cawf••1-r,
V.t lleDgal, [1983] l L.L.J, 332 overruled.                 ii

      2.1 In construi113 the proviaiOll8 of the Employees'
Provident l'llllds and Miscellaneous Provisiona Act, it 11118t be
    584                SUPREME COURT REPORTS        [1985] SUPP.3 s.c.R.

A   borne in llliDd 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. [587 A-B]

B          2.2 Section 2-A of the Act was inserted ..,rely for the
    purposes of clarifying the position that the Act applies to
    cCDpOaite factories. It is not the intent...nt of the section to
    lay down even by remotest implication that an establis1-nt,
    which ia a factory engaged in an industry specified in Schedule I
    will not be liable for coverage under the Act ...rely because it
    is part of a larger organisation carrying on SOllM! of the activi-
C   ties alao which may not fall within the scope of the Act. ( 586
    G-il; 587 A]

            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION       Civil Appeal No. 126 of
    1973.

          From the Judgment and Order dated 21.12. 70 of the Andhra
D   Pradesh High Court in Writ Appeal No. 396 of 1971.

                                     AND

            Civil Appeal No. 204 of 1973.

E         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.

F         ij.S. Gujral, c.v. Subba Rao, R.N. Poddar      and T.c. Sharma
    for the Respondents.

            The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

          BAIA!QU'l!INA ERADI, J. These two appeals . are directed
G   against two judgments of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissing
    two Writ Petitions filed by the appellants herein namely, the
    Andhra University and the Osmania Uoiversity challenging the
    legality and V(llidity of the notices issued to the two Univer-
    sities by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner of Andhra
    Pradesh intimating them that the Departments of Publications an.d
H   Press wherein printing presses were being run by the two Univer-
    sities, were liable for coverage under the 12nployees' Provident
  ANDHRA UNIVERSITY· v. P.F. COOMR. [llALAKRISHNA ERADI, J.]      585 .


Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act (hereinafter called the
'Act and Scheme') and calling upon the two Universities to submit         A
their monthly returns and remit the amounts of contribution as
required by the provisions of the Scheme. The 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 collllllOn contention taken by the appellants herein in the    B
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 ca:ter the needs
and requirements of the students cannot be regarded either as a           c
 '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         D
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 Conmissioner, Andhra Pradesh before a Division
Bench of the High Court, the Division Bench by two separate               E
 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               F
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 and magazines          G
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           H
of Publi~ations and Press of each University.
    586               SUPKJ::Mll COURT WlPORTS   [1985] SUPP.3 s.c.R.

A
          Section 1(3)(a) of the Act lays down that subject to the
    provisions contained in Section lb (those provisions are admit-
    tedly not applicable to the cases before us), the Act applies to
    every establishment which is a 'factory' engaged in any
    'industry 1 specified in Schedule I and in which 20 or more
B   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
C   process 1 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
D   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
E   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 :-
F
               "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 depart-
G              mehts 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
H   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
  ANUHRA UNIVERSITY v. P.F. COMMR. [BA!AKRISHNA ERADI, J,]   587

                                                                    A
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 bene-   B
Eicient 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
found that there is an establishment which is a 'factory' engaged
in an 'industry' specified in Schedule I and employing 20 or more   c
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 carry-
ing on other additional activities falling outside the Act.

     Our attention was drawn to a decision of a learned Single      D
Judge of the Calcutta High Court in Visva Bbarati v. Regional
Provident Fund Commissioner, West Bengal, [1983] l L.L.J. 332
wherein it was held that the provisions of the Act were inappli-
cable 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    E
not come under the provisions and or the purview of the Act, the
different branches or depa~tments 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.     F
     As already indicated, the true tests to be applied is
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. If the an•wer is in the
affirmative, the provisions of the Act are clearly attracted.       G

     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. The
printing of text books, journals, registers, forms and various      H
items of stationery clearly/constitute 'manufacture' within the
    588               SUPl(Elli; COURT liliPOl:lTS   (1985] SUPP.3 s.c.R.


    meaning of the said expression as defined in clause ( 1-c) of
A   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
B   satisfied in these cases and hence the conculsion 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.
C   They will accordingly stand dismissed with costs.




    s .)i.                                             APpeals dismissed.