The central legal point established in the judgment is the significance of industry classification under Schedule I of the Act and the obligations imposed based on the inclusion of industries, emphasizing the employer's duty to contribute to the provident fund for the benefit of the workmen.

BARIN GHOSH, J.

1. Sec. 2(i) of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) defines "Industry" as any industry specified in Schedule I, and includes any other industry added to the Schedule by notification u/s. 4 of the Act. Sec. 4 of the Act specifically authorises the Central Government to bring in Schedule I any other industry which has not been previously included in Schedule I to the Act.

2. The Act applies to, amongst others, every establishment, which is a factory engaged in any industry specified in Schedule I to the Act and in which 20 or more persons are employed. Therefore, a factory belonging to any industry specified in Schedule I to the Act engaging 20 or more persons is covered by the Act. If the industry is not specified in Schedule I, even if the factory of such industry is engaging more than 20 persons, the factory is not covered by the Act. It is, however, open to the Central Government to bring in any industry, which is not specified in Schedule I, within the purview of the Act, by issuing a notification in terms of the power conferred upon it by Sec. 4 of the Act. By exercising the power conferred upon the Central Government by Sec. 4 of the Act, on 3.08.1963, the aerated water industry, that is to say, any industry engaged in the manufacture of aerated water, soft drinks or carborated water, was brought in Schedule I to the Act and, accordingly, any factory associated with aerated water industry engaging more than 20 persons on and from 23.08.1963 came to be covered by the provisions of the Act.

3. The petitioner, who was established admittedly in 1998 and started manufacturing activities from the month of August, 1998, is engaged in the manufacture of packaged drinking water, but selling its product holding the same out as mineral water.

4. On 6.05.1999, an inspection was carried out at the factory of the petitioner at the behest of the Provident Fund Authority. The inspection report suggested that the petitioner was found to have engaged 15 persons. On 27.05.1999, i.e. about 22 days after the first inspection, yet another inspection was carried out by a squad belonging to the Provident Fund Authority, who also submitted its report. In the report, it was suggested that the petitioner has engaged 22 persons. Both these reports were signed by the person incharge of the manufacturing activities of the petitioner. In none of the reports, particulars of the persons engaged had been furnished. It appears that when the report of the squad was placed before the Assistant Commissioner, he felt that the basis of assertation pertaining to the number of employees is missing. He also opined that the squad report does not disclose from which date the employees strength stood to 22. The squad was, accordingly, asked to substantiate the same.

5. It appears that on 9.01.2002, the Assistant Commissioner, Smt. Vaishali Dayal passed an order to the effect that the establishment has already submitted enquiry report and, therefore, code number be issued to the establishment. It appears that on 29.05.2002 it was adjusted u/s. 7A of the Act that the Act applies to the petitioner. Petitioner filed a review against the said order, which having been rejected, the petitioner filed a writ petition and the Writ Court remitted the petitioner to the Tribunal. In the meantime, on 2.12.2002 an order was passed adjudicating the liability of the petitioner also in terms of Sec. 7A of the Act. The petitioner then went before the Tribunal and contended that the Act does not apply and quantification of liability, as made, is also incorrect. The Tribunal has rejected both the contentions of the writ petitioner and hence this writ petition.

6. It was the contention of the writ petitioner before the authority concerned, which has been reiterated before this Court in the present writ petition, that the petitioner did not engage at any point of time 20 workmen and, in any event,