JUDGMENT

BALAKRISHNA ERADI, J.:— These two appeals are directed against the judgments of the Andhra Pradesh High Court dismissing two Writ Petitions filed by the appellants herein namely the Andhra University and 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 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 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. The appeals have been filed on the basis of certificates of fitness granted by the High Court under Article 133(1)(c) of the Constitution.

2. 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.

3. 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 for the various constituent and affiliated Colleges as well as of various items of stationery such as admission forms to colleges, hostels and examination forms. 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.

4. 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."

5. Section 20(i-c) defines "manufacture" or manufacturing process a