Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 5827 of 1998
PETITIONER:
M/S LAKSHMANI STONE PRODUCTS & ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 30/01/2001
BENCH:
S. Rajendra Babu & S.N. Variava.
JUDGMENT:
RAJENDRA BABU, J. :
L...I...T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T..J
A notification was issued on February 12, 1977 under
Section 1(3)(b) of the Employees Provident Funds and
Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to
as the Act] specifying that certain establishments
mentioned in the Schedule thereto would be covered by the
Act and, inter alia, stating that the Act would apply to
stone quarries producing stone chips, stone set, stone
boulders and ballasts. On February 19, 1977 a notification
was issued under Section 7(1) of the Act to amend the
scheme, namely, the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 by
inserting identical provisions. A contention was raised by
the appellant in a writ petition filed before the High Court
that no notification has been issued under Section 4 of the
Act including stone quarries in the Schedule to the Act.
In the absence of a notification issued under Section 4 of
the act, it is contented that the Act has no application to
stone quarry industry. However, that writ petition was
dismissed. This appeal has been filed by leave granted by
this Court.
The High Court took the view that the appellant was
carrying on the business of quarrying stone under a mining
lease and it was carried on by blasting stones at quarry by
explosives which are thereafter sized either manually by
chipping or by using a mechanical crusher resulting in stone
chips. The High Court held that the operations carried on
by the appellant are not disassociated activities but
integrally connected with each other and form part of a
continuous process and the claim of the appellant that it is
running a factory was not accepted. The High Court noticed
that the appellant runs the establishment of stone quarry
which has been brought within the purview of the Act, and
inasmuch as the operation of reducing stones into smaller
size is subsidiary and incidental operation to the primary
activity, that is, running a stone quarry, the High Court
took the view that it is an establishment which has been
brought within the ambit of the Act by issuing notifications
on February 12, 1977 and February 19, 1977.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
On the facts of the case, admittedly the appellants are
lessee under the State Government under the provisions of
Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1952 to
quarry and to crush stones. Therefore, the appellants are
engaged in a manufacturing process as is rightly held by the
High Court. It is clear that dominant activity of the
appellant is to quarry the stones and cut or chip them to
appropriate size before marketing the same either by manual
or mechanical process which is a subsidiary and incidental
activity to the primary activity of running a stone quarry.
In that view of the matter, we find no substance in this
appeal and the same stands dismissed. No costs.