Ashok Bhushan, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant.

2. This appeal by the Food Corporation of India has been filed against the judgment dated 9.8.2007 in O.P.No.8057/1996. The Original Petition was filed by the petitioner challenging Exhibit P8 show cause notice dated 30.4.1996 issued by the Labour Welfare Fund Inspector under the Kerala Labour Welfare Fund Act, 1975. In the Writ Petition the petitioner prayed the following reliefs:

“i) to call for the records and proceedings relating to Exhibits P1, P3 and P5, P6, P7 and P8 and to quash or set aside the same by a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order, directions and.

ii) to declare that the provisions of the Kerala Labour welfare Fund Act are not applicable to the petitioner and therefore the petitioner is not liable to make any contribution as demanded by the respondents.

iii) to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ or order restraining the respondents from taking any coercive action against the petitioner under the Kerala Labour Welfare Fund Act as per Exhibit B notice or otherwise.”

3. The learned Single Judge, by the impugned judgment, has dismissed the Writ Petition rejecting the submission of the petitioner that they are the department of the Central Government and are exempted from the applicability of the Kerala Labour Welfare Fund Act, 1975 by virtue of definition under Section 2(f)(v) of the Act.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant, in support of the Writ Appeal, contended that the provisions of the Kerala Labour Welfare Fund Act, 1975 are not attracted on the Food Corporation of India. It is submitted that the show cause notice was without jurisdiction, hence ought to have been quashed by the learned Single Judge. It is submitted that the Food Corporation of India is fully controlled and managed by the Central Government, hence it is an establishment of the Central Government and thus, clearly exempted as defined in Section 2(f)(v) of the Act.

5. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and perused the records.

6. It is well settled that show cause notice can be challenged in a proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the ground that the show cause notice is without jurisdiction. Otherwise, normally this Court does not entertain a Writ Petition challenging show cause notice relegating the petitioner to submit a reply before the authority concerned. However, since learned counsel for the appellant submits that the show cause notice is without jurisdiction, we proceed to examine the said issue.

7. The Kerala Labour Welfare Fund Act, 1975 has been enacted to provide for the constitution of a Fund for promoting the welfare of labour and for certain other matters connected therewith. The said enactment extends to whole of State of Kerala. Section 2(f) defines “establishment”. Section 2(f) of the Kerala Labour Welfare Fund Act is quoted as below:

“2. Definitions.-

xx xx

(f) “establishment” includes:-

(i) a factory as defined in clause (m) of Section 2 of the Factories Act, 1948 (Central 63 of 1948) or any place which is deemed to be a factory under sub-section (2) of Section 85 of that Act;

(ii) a motor transport undertaking as defined in clause (g) of Section 2 of the Motor Transport workers Act, 1961 (Central act 27 of 1961);

(iii) any land used for growing trea, rubber, coffee, cardamom, oil palm cocoa, in which ten or more persons are employed or where employed in any day of the preceding twelve months;

(iv) any commercial establishment within the meaning of clause (4) or any shop within the meaning of clause 15 of Section 2 of the Kerala Shop and Commercial Establishment Act, 1960 (34 of 1960), which employs or on any working day during the preceding twelve months employed, two or more person:

(v) an establishment, including a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (Central Act 21 of 1860) or the Travancore Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Registratio