Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3
PETITIONER:
OSMANIA UNIVERSITY
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
REGIONAL DIRECTOR, EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION, AN
DATE OF JUDGMENT08/10/1985
BENCH:
ERADI, V. BALAKRISHNA (J)
BENCH:
ERADI, V. BALAKRISHNA (J)
REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J)
KHALID, V. (J)
CITATION:
1986 AIR 466 1985 SCR Supl. (3) 589
1985 SCC (4) 514 1985 SCALE (2)696
ACT:
Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 Sections 1 (4) and
2(12).
Publications and Press Department of University -
Running printing press and printing of text books, journals
and stationery items for University - Employees of such
Department whether eligible for benefits of ESI Act.
Words & Phrases
‘Factory’- ’Manufacturing process’- Meaning of -
Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948, Section 2(12).
HEADNOTE:
The Department of Publications and Press of the Osmania
University (Appellant) runs printing presses, where the work
of printing of text books, journals and magazines as well as
various items of stationery such as admission forms to
colleges, hostels and examinations, hall tickets, answer
books etc. for the University are printed. about 100 persons
are employed in connection with the said activity.
On the question : whether the provisions of the
Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 are applicable in
respect of the employees working in the Department of
Publication and Presses, a Division Bench of the High Court
answered the question in the affirmative, set aside the
judgment of a Single Judge, and dismissed the Writ Petition
of the University.
Dismissing the Appeal of the University, this Court,
^
HELD: The Department of Publications and Press of the
University is engaged in carrying on a ’manufacturing
process’ in the printing of text-books, Journals, forms and
other items of
590
stationery. It is a ’factory’ within the meaning of the said
expression as defined in section 2(12) of the Employees’
State Insurance Act, 1948. The employees are therefore
eligible for the benefits under the said Act. [592 A]
JUDGMENT:
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1079 of
1973.
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.11.1972 of the
Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Appeal No. 345 of 1972.
B.R.L. Iyengar, G.N. Rao, T.C. Gupta and Attar Singh
for the Appellant.
M.S. Gujral, C.V. Subba Rao, R.N. Poddar and T.C.
Sharma for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
BALAKRISHNA ERADI, J. : The short question that arises
for our determination in this appeal, which has been filed
on the basis of a certificate granted by the High Court of
Andhra Pradesh is whether the provisions of the Employees’
State Insurance Act, 1948 are applicable in respect of the
employees working in the Department of Publications and
Press of the Osmania University. A Division Bench of the
High Court has answered the said question in the affirmative
differing from the contrary view expressed by a learned
Single Judge, who had allowed a Writ Petition filed by the
University. In the light of the said conclusion, the
Division Bench set aside the judgment of the learned Single
Judge and dismissed the Writ Petition. Under clause (4) of
Section 1 of the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 (for
short ‘the act’) the Act will apply to all ’factories’
including factories belonging to the Government other than
seasonal factories. The expression "factory" has been
defined in Section 2(12) of the Act in the following terms:-
2(12) "factory" means any premises including the
precincts thereof whereon twenty or more persons
are employed or were employed for wages on any day
of the preceding twelve months, and in any part of
which a manufacturing process is being carried on
with the aid of power or is ordinarily so carried
on but does not include a mine subject to the
operation of the Mines Act, 1952 (35 of 1952) or a
railway running shed;
591
"seasonal factory" means a factory which is
exclusively engaged in one or more of the
following manufacturing processes, namely cotton
ginning, cotton or jute pressing, decortication of
groundnuts, the manufacture of coffee, indigo,
lac, rubber, sugar (including gur) or tea or any
manufacturing process which is incidental to or
connected with any of the aforesaid processes;
(and includes a factory which is engaged for a
period not exceeding seven months in a year -
(a) in any process of blending, packing, or
repacking of tea or coffee; or
(b) in such other manufacturing process as the
Central Government may, by notification in the
Official Gazette specify;)
The expression "manufacturing process" and ’power"
shall have the meaning respectively assigned to
them in the Factories Act, 1948 (63 of 1948)."
Clause (k) of Section 2 of the Factories Act defines
the expression ’Manufacturing process’. For the purposes of
this case we need refer to only sub-clause (i) of the said
definition clause. that sub-clause states that Manufacturing
Process means any process for "making, altering, repairing,
ornamenting, finishing, packing, oiling, washing, cleaning,
breaking up, demolishing, or otherwise treating or adapting
any article or substance with a view to its use, sale,
transport, delivery or disposal".
In the connected appeal - C.A. No. 204 of 1973 filed by
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3
the same appellant, we had occasion to consider whether the
Department of Publications and Press run by the University
is liable for coverage under the Employees’ Provident Funds
and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 together with Schemes
and Notifications. In our judgment in that appeal we have
taken the view that the said department is engaged in
carrying on a ’manufacturing process’ in the printing of
text books, journals, forms and other items of stationery.
The definition of "manufacturing process" contained in
Section 2(l-c) of the Employees’ Provident Funds and
Miscellaneous Provisions Act is identical in all respects
with that contained in Section 2(k)(i) of the Factories Act.
592
In the light of the aforesaid conclusion recorded by us
in C.A. No. 204 of 1973 it must be held that the department
in question is a ’factory’ within the meaning of the said
expression as defined in Section 2 (12) of the Act. The
judgment under appeal does not, therefore, call for any
interference.
This appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs.
N.V.K. Appeal dismissed
593