New India Assurance Company Ltd, Surya Towers, S.D. Road, Secunderabad v. The Welfare Commissioner, A.P.Labour Welfare Board, RTC X

Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner, would place reliance on Section 2(4) of the Andhra Pradesh Labour Welfare Fund Act, 1987, which defines an ‘establishment’ to mean: (i) a factory as defined in Section 2(m) of the Factories Act, 1948; (ii) a motor transport undertaking as defined in the Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961; (iii) any other establishment as defined in Section 2(10) of the Andhra Pradesh Shops and Establishments Act, 1966 and includes a society registered under any law in force in the State relating to registration of societies, and a charitable or other trust, whether registered or not, which carries on any business or trade or any work in connection with or ancillary thereto and which employs or on any working day during the preceding twelve months employed include an twenty or more persons, but does not establishment, not being a factory, belonging to or under the control of the Central or any State Government.

Under clauses (i) to (iii) of Section 2(4) of the A.P.Labour Welfare Fund Act, factories, transport undertakings and other establishments come under the definition of ‘establishment’. However, an ‘establishment’, not being a factory, belonging to or under the control of Central or State Government is specifically excluded from the definition of ‘establishment’ under clause (iii) of Section 2(4) of the Act. Learned counsel, in this context, would refer to Section 73(1)(b) of the A.P. Shops and Establishments Act, whereunder ‘establishments’ under the Central and State Governments are exempted from the provisions of the A.P.Shops and Establishments Act. Learned counsel would emphasise, in my view rightly so, that since a provision in pari materia arose for consideration in C.V.Raman1, the provisions of the A.P. Labour Welfare Fund Act would also not apply to establishments under the control of the Central Government.

In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in C.V.Raman1, ‘establishment’ under the control of the Central Government would not come under the purview of the A.P. Labour Welfare Fund Act in view of the exclusionary provisions in clause (iii) of Section 2(4) of the said Act. The question which, however, requires to be adjudicated is whether the petitioner is an establishment under the control of the Central Government. While Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner, would make submissions on merits to contend that the petitioner is an ‘establishment’ under the control of the Central Government, these are questions of fact, which are better examined by respondent herein and not in summary proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. While setting aside the impugned order dated 22-09-1997 and remanding the matter to the respondent herein for consideration afresh in accordance with law, I consider appropriate to direct the respondent to examine the factual aspect whether the petitioner herein is an ‘establishment’ under the control of the Central Government.