The business of body-building on chassis does not fall within the industries covered by the Employees Provident Funds Act, 1952, as it does not involve any engineering design or invention.

Harbans Singh, J.

1. The petitioner-firm, Free India Industries, Jullundur City, carries on the business of body building on chassis at Jullunder City. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Punjab, made demands from time to time on the petitioner-firm for the payment of the provident fund under the provisions of the Employees Provident Funds Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), and threatened to prosecute them under Sec.14 of the Act for non-compliance. The present petition was brought under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Sec.561a of the Criminal Procedure Code. Two main points were taken in the petition: first, that Sec.5 of the Act is ultra vires of the Constitution inasmuch as the powers of deciding which industry will be governed by the provisions of the Act, is left entirely in the hands of the executive, and, secondly, that the business in which the petitioner-firm Is engaged does not fall within the purview of the Act.

2. In the reply filed by respondent Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Punjab, it was admitted that the petitioner-firm carries on the business of body-building on chassis. It was, however, denied that the process of bodybuilding on chassis merely Involved carpentry work, as was alleged by the petitioner-firm.

3. In a number of oases decided by this Court the provisions of Sec.5 of, the Act have been Meld to be intra vires and it is not open to me to go into this question afresh.

4. I The sole point for consideration, therefore, is whether the business of the petitioner-firm falls within the industries covered by the Act. According to Sub-section (3) of Sec.1, as it stands modified, the Act applies to every establishment which is a factory engaged in any industry specified in Schedule I and in which (twenty or more persons are employed. "industry" means any industry specified in Schedule I and "factory" is defined as premises in any part of which a manufacturing process is being carried on whether with the aid of power or without the aid of power. It is not denied that more than twenty persons are being employed by the petitioner firm and that the premises where the work is being carried on does fall within the definition of "factory. " According to the respondent, this business of body-building on chassis falls Within the industries detailed In the schedule because it falls under the heading "any industry engaged in the manufacture of electrical, mechanical or general engineering products. " This clause came up for consideration by a Letters Patent Bench in shibu Metal Works, Jagadhri V/s. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Letters Patent, appeal No.312 of 1959 decided on 10 April 1962. After considering a number of decided cases And taking into consideration the conflicting flews, the Bench held as follows: Construing the expression electrical, mechanical, or general engineering products in the light of what has just been stated, I am inclined to hold that the legislative emphasis is intended to be more prominent on the words engineering products which represent the core of the entry and the words electrical, mechanical and general have to be construed as qualifying the engineering products. it is true that in the explanation the expression electrical, mechanical or general engineering products appears to have been given a somewhat wider connotation by including about 25 items bat looking at these items individually they seem to bring out with some prominence the engineering aspect of the product. . . the remaining items do seem to illustrate the general legislative intent as to the meaning, scope and effect of the expression electrical, mechanical and general engineering products.

5. As has been stated above, it is not denied that the petitioner-firm is doing the work of body-building on chassis. According to the petitioner, this work is in the nature of carpentry work. The question for consideration is, can this business be categorized as manufa