Open iDraf
Regional Director, Employee's State Insurance Corporation v. High Land Coffee Works Of P.f.x. Saldanha And Sons Andanr

Regional Director, Employee's State Insurance Corporation
v.
High Land Coffee Works Of P.f.x. Saldanha And Sons Andanr

(Supreme Court Of India)

C. A. No. 1837-1841 of 1977 with S. L. P. No. 2481 of 1982 | 26-07-1991


K. Jagannatha Shetty, J.

1. These appeals by special leave are directed against the judgment of the Karnataka High Court rejecting the claim of the appellant-Corporation for covering the factories of the respondents under the provisions of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 ( the).

2. Section 1(4) excludes ``seasonal factory from the scope of the. The ``seasonal factory is defined under Section 2(12) of thewhich is extracted hereunder:

``Seasonal factory means a factory which is exclusively engaged in one or more of the following manufacturing processes, namely, cotton ginning, cotton or jute pressing, decortication of groundnuts, the manufacture of coffee, indigo, lac, rubber, sugar (including gur) or tea or any manufacturing process which is incidental to or connected with any of the aforesaid processes.

3. The factories of the respondents were excluded from the operation of the since they were declared to be the seasonal factories within the meaning of the above stated definition. There is no dispute on this aspect.

4. By Amending Act 44 of 1966 which came into force with effect from 28th January, 1968, the definition of ``seasonal factory has been amended. The definition as amended reads:

``Seasonal factory means a factory which is exclusively engaged in one or more of the following manufacturing processes, namely, cotton ginning, cotton or jute pressing, decortication of groundnuts, the manufacture of coffee, indigo, lac, rubber, sugar (including gur) or tea or any manufacturing process which is incidental to or connected with any of the aforesaid processes and includes a factory which is engaged for a period not exceeding seven months in year -

(a) in any process of blending, packing or re-packing of tea or coffee; or

(b) in such other manufacturing process as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify;

The expressions ``manufacturing process and ``power shall have the meaning respectively assigned to them in the Factories Act, 1948.

5. After the said amendment, the Employees' State Insurance Corporation called upon the respondents to pay the contributions payable under the and threatened to taken coercive steps to recover the arrears under the Revenue Recovery Act and prosecute them. Challenging the validity of the demand made, the respondents approached the Employees' Insurance Court, inter alia, contending that the amendment to the definition of the expression ``seasonal factory brought out by the Amending Act 44 of 1966 has not altered the position of the seasonal factory as obtained prior to the amendment and Section 1(4) of thewould still continue to exclude such factory from the operation of the. The Employees' Insurance Court accepted the respondents' plea. The Karnataka High Court has also agreed with the view taken by the Employees' Insurance Court. The Corporation has now appealed to this Court.

6. The sole question for consideration is whether the respondents' factories in view of the amendment to the definition of `seasonal factory' have lost the benefit of exclusion from the. The High Court on this aspect has observed that the purpose of the amendment was to enlarge and not to restrict the statutory concept of `seasonal factory' and the position of respondents' establishments as seasonal factories under and for the purpose of the remained unaltered even after the amendment.

7. The view taken by the High Court seems to be justified. The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Bill which later became the 44 of 1966 indicates that the proposed amendment was to bring within the scope of the definition of `seasonal factory', a factory which works for a period of not exceeding seven months in a year - (a) in any process of blending, packing or repacking of tea or coffee; or (b) in such other manufacturing process as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify. The amendment, therefore, was clearly in favour of the widening the definition of `seasonal factory'. The amendment is in the nature of expansion of the original definition as it is clear from the use of the words `include a factory'. The amendment does not restrict the original definition of `seasonal factory' but makes addition thereto by inclusion. The word ``include in the statutory definition is generally used to enlarge the meaning of the proceeding words and it is by way of extension, and not with restriction. The word ``include is very generally used in interpretation clauses in order to enlarge the meaning of words or phrases occurring in the body of the statute; and when it is so used, 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. (See (i) Stroud's Judicial Dictionary, 5th ed. Vol. 3, p. 1263 and (ii) C.I.T. Andhra Pradesh v. M/s Taj Mahal Hotel, Secunderabad: 1971(3) SCC 550). (iii) State of Bombay v. The Hospital Mazdoor Sabha : 1960(2) SCR 866 at 875).

8. In view of these well accepted rules of statutory construction, the decision of the High Court does not call for interference.

9. In the result the appeals and the special leave petition fail and are dismissed with costs.

10. Appeal dismissed.

Advocates List

For

For Petitioner
  • Shekhar Naphade
  • Mahesh Agrawal
  • Tarun Dua
For Respondent
  • S. Vani
  • B. Sunita Rao
  • Sushil Kumar Pathak

Bench List

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. RAMASWAMI

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGESHWAR DAYAL

Eq Citation

(1991) 3 SCC 617

1992 (1) SCT 92 (SC)

JT 1991 (3) SC 325

1991 (2) SCALE 221

AIR 1992 SC 129

1991 (63) FLR 423

(1992) 1 LLJ 287

1991 (2) LLN 462

1991 (5) SLR 88

1991 (2) UJ 596

1991 (2) CLR 479

LQ/SC/1991/334

HeadNote

Labour Law — Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (23 of 1948) — Ss. 1(4) and 2(12) — Seasonal factory — Definition of — Amending Act 44 of 1966, with effect from 28-1-1968 — Whether the respondents' factories in view of the amendment to the definition of `seasonal factory' have lost the benefit of exclusion from 1948 Act — Held, the purpose of the amendment was to enlarge and not to restrict the statutory concept of `seasonal factory' and the position of respondents' establishments as seasonal factories under and for the purpose of 1948 Act remained unaltered even after the amendment — Impugned judgment of High Court agreeing with the view taken by the Employees' Insurance Court, held, justified — Constitution of India — Art. 226 — Amending Act 44 of 1966 — Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Bill which later became 44 of 1966