Definition of industry specified in Schedule I of the Act.

This is a petition for the issue of an appropriate writ to restrain the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner from enforcing his orders dated 28th November, 1956, 29th December, 1956, and 6th March, 1957. The relevant facts are these. The petitioners are the firm of V. Perumal Chetty & Sons. They run a pencil factory in Madras, in which according to one part of the record 114 people and according to another part of the record 140 people are employed. The factory utilises imported machinery, and attached to the factory is a foundry and a workshop in which certain spare parts required for the use of the machinery are fabricated. The number of persons employed in this workshop and foundry is 23.

On 28th November, 1956, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner wrote to the petitioners,

“Your factory comes under the purview of the Employees Provident Funds Act, 1952 and the Scheme framed thereunder from 1st November, 1952 as it is engaged in the manufacture of ”General Engineering Products“ one of the industries mentioned in Schedule I to the Employees Provident Funds Act, 1952, has completed three years from the date of commencement of production on the 6th October, 1952 and has employed fifty or more persons on the 6th October, 1952”.

He then called upon them to submit various returns and make various remittances. On 20th December, 1956, the petitioners replied that their factory did not fall under the Employees Provident Funds Act. On 29th December, 1956, the Commissioner wrote to the petitioners,

“With reference to your letter cited you are informed that section 1 (3) of the Employees Provident Fund Act provides that the Act applies to all factories engaged in any industry specified in Schedule I in which 50 or more persons are employed. The words ‘in which 50 or more persons are employed ‘have reference to the word ‘factory’ and not to ‘industry ‘. Therefore even though the number of workers engaged in a schedule industry in factory may be less than 50, the Act will apply to the factory if in the factory as a whole 50 workers or more are employed. It is the total employment, as a strength of the factory as a unit on the crucial date, viz., 6th October, 1952, which is material and not the employment strength of a section engaged in the Scheduled Industry.”

On 18th January, 1957, the petitioners again wrote to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner to which on 6th March, 1957, he sent a reply requiring the petitioners to comply with the instructions already issued. In paragraph 4 of this letter, the Commissioner stated:

“It is brought to your notice that by not implementing the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 so far in your factory you have violated the mandatory provisions of the Employees Provident Fund Act, 1952 and the scheme and have thus rendered yourself liable for prosecution under section 14 of the Act and paragraph 76 (a), (c) and (e) of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme 1952. If you do not implement the scheme within a week of receipt of this notice, you are hereby informed and please take notice that penal action under the Provisions of the Act and the scheme quoted above will be taken against you without any further intimation to you.”

In view of this, the petitioners filed the present writ petition on 15th March, 1957. They also applied for an interim injunction in C.M.P. No. 2311 of 1957, and on 15th April, 1958, Rajagopalan, J., granted the interim injunction prayed for. Section 19 (a) of the Employees Provident Funds Act of 1952 provides that

“if any debt arises as to (i) whether a factory is engaged in any industry specified in schedule I: or (ii) whether 50 or more persons are employed in factory......the Central Government may by order make such provision or give such direction....as appear to it to be necessary, or expedient for the removal of the doubt or difficulty....”

The section also provides that the order of the Central Government in such a case shall be final. In view of this the petitioners w