M/S LAKSHMANI STONE PRODUCTS AND ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

                  M/S LAKSHMANI STONE PRODUCTS AND ORS.                                   A
                                              v.
                              UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

                                   JANUARY 30, 2001

                   [S. RAJENDRA BABU AND S.N. VARIAVA, JJ.]                               B

              Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952-
        Sections (J){b). 4, 7(/)-Notification issued applying Employees' Providem
        Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act to stone quarries-Appellant
        carrying on the business of quan:)'ing stone which were thereafter si=ed C
        either manually hy chipping or by using a mechanical crusher before
        marketing the same-Held, appellant is covered by the Act inasmuch as the
        dominant activity of the appellant is to quany the stones and operation of
        reducing stones into smaller size is a subsidiG1y and incidental activit;~
        Employees' Provident Fund Scheme, 1952-Mines and Minerals (Regulation D
        and Development) Act, 1952.

               A notification was issued under Section 1(3)(b) of the Employees'
        Provident Funds and miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 applying the Act to
        'stone quarries' producing stone chips, stone set, stone boulders and ballasts.
        Pursuant thereto, a notification was issued under Section 7(1) of the Act to      E
        amend the scheme, namely, the Employees' Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 by
        inserting identical provisions. Appellant, carrying on the business of
        quarrying stone and thereafter reducing stones into smaller size, filed a writ·
        petition in the High Court contending that the Employees' Provident Funds
 --\    and Miscellaneous Provisions Act had no application to 'stone quarry'             F
        industry as no notification had been issued including stone quarries in the
        Schedule to the Act. The said writ petition having been dismissed, appellant
        has preferred the present appeal.

              Dismissing the appeal, the Court
                                                                                          G
~-f--         HELD : I. Appellants are lessess under the State Government under
        the provisions of Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act,
        1952 to quarry and to crush stones. Dominant activity of the appellant is to
        quarry the stones and cut or chip them to appropriate size before marketing
        the same either by manual or mechanical process which is a subsidiary and         H
                                             689
    690                            SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2001] I S.C.R.

A incidental activity to the primary activity of running a stone quarry. The
    operations carried on by one appellant are not disassociated activities but
    integrally connected with each other and form part of a continuous process.
    Therefore, the appellants are engaged in a manufacturing process and running
    an establishment which has been rightly brought within the purview of the
B   Act by issuing notifications to the effect.1691-A-D]

            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5827 of
    1998.

            From the Judgment and Order dated 3.11.92 of the Patna High Court in
C C.W.J.C.No.2153ofl982.

         H.K. Puri, S.K. Puri, Rajesh Srivastava, Ujjwal Banerjee and Ms. Anindita
    Gupta for the Appellants.

       Ms. Bina Madhven, Ajay Sharma, C. Radha Krishna and Arvind Kumar
D Shanna for the Respondents.
            The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

            RAJENDRA BABU, J. A notification was issued on February 12, 1977
  under Section 1(3)(b) of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous
  Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'] specifying that
E
  certain establishments mentioned in the Schedule thereto would be covered
  by the Act and, inter alia, stating that the Act would apply to 'stone
  quarries' producing stone chips, stone set, stone boulders and ballasts. On
  February 19, 1977 a notification was issued under Section 7(1) of the Act to
  amend the scheme, namely, the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 by
F inserting identical provisions. A contentioo was raised by the appellant in a
  writ petition filed before the High Court that no notification has been issued
  under Section 4 of the Act including 'stone quarries' in the Schedule to the
  Act. In the absence of a notification issued under Section 4 of the Act, it is
  contented that the Act has no application to stone quarry industry. However,
G that writ petition was dismissed. This appeal has been filed by leave granted
  by this Court.

         The High Court took the view that the appellant was carrying on the
  business of quarrying stone under a mining lease and it was carried on by
  blasting stones at quarry by explosives which are thereafter sized either
H manually by chipping or by using a mechanical crusher resulting in stone
                          LAKSHMANI STONE PRODUCTS v. U.0.1. [RA.IENDRA BABU, .I.]            691

...                chips. The High Couri held that the operations carried on by the appella11t A
      ·+- are not disassociated activities but integrally connected with each other and
             · form part of a continuous process and the claim of the appellant that it is
               running a factory was not accepted. The High Court noticed that the appellant
               runs the establishment of stone quarry which has been brought within the
               purview of the Act, and inasmuch as the operation of reducing stones into
               smaller size is subsidiary and incidental operation to the primary activity, that      B
           x· is, running a stone quarry, the High Court took the view that it is an
               'establishment' which has been brought within the ambit of the Act by
               issuing notifications on February 12, 1977 and February 19. 1977.

                          On the facts of the case, admittedly the appellants are lessee under the
                   State Government under the provisions of Mines and Minerals (Regulation
                                                                                                      c
                   and Development) Act, 1952 to quarry and to crush stones. Therefore. the
          -.,,.-   appellants are engaged in a manufacturing process as is rightly held by the
                   High Court. It is clear that dominant activity of the appellant is to quarry the
                   stones and cut or chip them to appropriate size before marketing the same
                   either by manual or mechanical process which is a subsidiary and incidental        D
                   activity to the primary activity of running a stone quarry. In that view of the
                   matter, we find no substance in this appeal and the same stands dismissed.
      .   _,.      No costs .

                   M.P.                                                         Appeal dismissed.
                                                                                                      E