The expression "Electrical, mechanical or general engineering products" in Schedule I of the Employees Provident Funds Act, 1952, is a broad one and includes metal lamps and burners, as they are engineering products produced by a machine or mechanism.

Headnote:
EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUNDS ACT, 1952 - SECTION 1(3), SCHEDULE I - INTERPRETATION - EXPRESSION "ELECTRICAL, MECHANICAL OR GENERAL ENGINEERING PRODUCTS" - SCOPE - WHETHER INCLUDES METAL LAMPS AND BURNERS - WHETHER ACT APPLIES TO ENTIRE FACTORY OR ONLY TO SECTION MANUFACTURING BURNERS AND METAL LAMPS - SECTION 19-A - WHETHER OBLIGATORY TO REFER DISPUTE TO CENTRAL GOVERNMENT.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a glass manufacturer, challenged the applicability of the Employees Provident Funds Act, 1952, to its factory. The dispute arose due to the inclusion of "Electrical, mechanical or general engineering products" in Schedule I of the Act, which was amended in 1953 to include "hurricane lanterns" but not metal lamps or burners. The petitioner argued that these products were not covered by the Act, while the respondent contended that they fell within the broad definition of "Electrical, mechanical or general engineering products."
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the expression "Electrical, mechanical or general engineering products" was a broad one and included metal lamps and burners, as they were engineering products produced by a machine or mechanism. The court also held that the explanation added to Schedule I in 1953, which specified certain products, did not limit the scope of the expression but was merely illustrative. However, the court found that the Act could not apply to the entire factory as glass was not included in Schedule I, and it only applied to the section producing burners and metal lamps.
Issues: 1. Whether the expression "Electrical, mechanical or general engineering products" includes metal lamps and burners. 2. Whether the Act applies to the entire factory or only to the section manufacturing burners and metal lamps. 3. Whether it was obligatory to refer the dispute to the Central Government under Section 19-A of the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted the expression "Electrical, mechanical or general engineering products" broadly to include metal lamps and burners, as they were engineering products produced by a machine or mechanism. The court rejected the argument that the explanation added to Schedule I in 1953 limited the scope of the expression, holding that it was merely illustrative. 2. The court held that the Act could not apply to the entire factory as glass was not included in Schedule I, and it only applied to the section producing burners and metal lamps. 3. The court held that it was not obligatory to refer the dispute to the Central Government under Section 19-A of the Act, as this provision only applied where the Central Government or the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner found that there was a "difficulty" in interpreting the Schedule.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition in part and issued a writ restraining the respondent from enforcing compliance by the petitioner with the provisions of the Act except with respect to 187 workers engaged in the section manufacturing burners and metal lamps.

Judgment -

1. Tins is a petition under Article 226 of the Constir tution for the issue of a writ of prohibition or any other writ to the respondent prohibiting him from enforcing the provisions of the Employees Provident Funds Act,. 1952, against the petitioner.

2. The relevant facts are as follows : The principal business of the petitioner is the manufacture of glass. It is also engaged in the business of manufacture of burners and metal lamps (consisting of glass oil containers and globes and metal burners and reflectors). In the year 1952, the Employees Provident Funds Act was passed. Sub-section (3) of Section 1, of the Act applies to all factories engaged in any industry specified in Schedule I of the Act provided that they employ fifty or more workers in that industry. The Schedule to the Act however does not include a glass industry.

3. By Act 37 of 1953, this Act was amended and an Explanation was added in Schdule I. This Explanation gives a list of industries which are covered by the expression Electrical, mechanical or general engineering products" used in the Schedule. Neither the glass industry" nor burners and metal lamps are included in the aforesaid Explanation. This Explanation also added an entry "hurricane lanterns" as included in the expression "Electrical, mechanical or general engineering products".

4. According to the petitioner, burners and metal lamps produced by it are not parts and accessories of hurricane lanterns. This fact is however denied by the respondent.

5. On 16-3-1955, the petitioner received a letter from the Regional Provident Fund Cormmis-sioner, M. P. Nagpur stating that out of the total Strength of 420 workers working in the petitioners industry only 187 workers were employed in the section, manufacturing metal lamps, burners and hurricane lanterns which are included under the term "Electrical, Mechanical or general engineering products" and that as such the Act was applicable not only to this section of the factory but to the whole factory.

6. The petitioner protested against this interpretation without any avail. It apprehends that the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner will now proceed to recover the amount due from it under the provisions of Section 8 of the Act and has therefore come up to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. .

7. The question is whether the expression "Electrical, mechanical or general engineering products" includes metal lamps or burners. We assume for the purposes of this case that they are not fit for being used in hurricane lanterns. Now, the expression "Electrical, mechanical or general engineering products" is a vary wide one, and even though metal lamps and burners arc not included in the explanation to the Schedule, it would seem that they would fall within the general expression. The only limitation that could be placed on the product is that it must be an engineering product, The adjective electrical means, according to the. Shorter Oxford Dictionary relating to or connected with electricity; while the adjective mechanical* means, in this context, according to that Dictionary, Acting worked, or produced by a machine or mechanism. Thus, the expression Electrical, mechanical or general engineering products" means engineering products relating to or connected with electricity, or engineering products acting or worked or produced by a machine or mechanism, or products produced by a craftsman employing a certain design or invention. Burners and .metal lamps will thus fall within the expression inasmuch as they are engineering pro-duels and could be produced by a machine or mechanism and could also be produced by a craftsman employing a certain design or invention. In our opinion, therefore, the section of the petitioners factory which is solely devoted to the production and marketing of these products would fall within the Schedule.

8. Shri Bobde who appeared for the petitioner then argued that the expression "Electrical, mechanical Or general engineer

Click Here to Read the rest of this document