M/S. Bismilla Coir Mart & Ors. v. NONE

O.P.No.4937 of 1999- 2 -the purview of the notification, since the establishment of thepetitioners is engaged in the further process of convertingspinned coir yarn into bales by rehanking, they are liable to becovered under the Act. The 3rd respondent also found that thepetitioners have been employing 20 or more persons in theirestablishment. Ext.P7 is the order passed by the authorityunder Section 7A of the Act. The petitioner challenged the saidorder before the Appellate Tribunal in an appeal. That appealwas also rejected by Ext.P9 order upholding Ext.P7 order. Thepetitioner is challenging Exts.P7 and P9 orders in this originalpetition. The petitioners' contention is that petitioners' businessactually does not involve anything more than spinning coiryarn, which is excluded from the purview of Ext.P3 notification. According to the petitioners the process of rehanking is onlypacking individual coir yarn into bundles which does notinvolve any manufacturing process whatsoever, apart fromspinning and therefore the petitioners establishment is not afactory liable to be covered under the Act.

They also disputethe finding of fact that 20 or more persons are employed intheir establishment.3. With the help of a counter affidavit the Provident Fund O.P.No.4937 of 1999- 3 -Organisation seeks to controvert the contentions of thepetitioner. According to them, the rehanking of individual coiryarn making the same into bundles necessarily involvesmanufacturing process and therefore the petitioners'establishment is a factory carrying on a manufacturing processother than spinning of coir yarn. 3. I have heard the rival contentions in detail.4. At the outset, I may state that, I am not inclined tointerfere with the finding of the lower authorities that thepetitioners have been employing 20 or more persons in theirestablishment. Findings of facts entered into by suchauthorities can be interfered with by this court in proceedingsunder Article 226 of the Constitution of India only if the sameare demonstrably perverse.

On a reading of Exts.P7 and P9, Iam unable to persuade myself hold that the findings on factentered in Exts. P7 and P9 are demonstrably perverse. Thatbeing so, I am not inclined to interfere with the finding thatthe petitioners have been employing 20 or more persons intheir establishment.5. The next question to be considered is as to whether thepetitioners' establishment is liable to be covered under the Actby virtue of Ext.P3 notification issued by the Government of O.P.No.4937 of 1999- 4 -India. Ext.P3 notification reads thus: “G.S.R. 952 - Whereas the Central Government is ofthe opinion that a provident fund scheme should be framedunder the Employees Provident Fund and Misc. ProvisionsAct, 1952 (19 of 1952), in respect of the employees of thecoir (excluding spinning sector) industry. Now, therefore, in exercise of powers conferred by Sub Section (1) of Section 4 of the Employees ProvidentFund and Misc.

Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952), the Central Government hereby directs that with effect from30th September, 1965, the said industry shall be added toschedule I of the said Act.” 6. From the same, it is abundantly clear that the spinningsector of coir industry is excluded from the purview of thenotification. Therefore, only if the petitioners are undertakingsome manufacturing process other than spinning coir yarn, they are liable to be covered by virtue of the said notification. In this connection we must also refer to the provisions relatingto application of the Act. Sub Section 3 of Section 1 of the Act, is the relevant provision which reads thus:

[(3) Subject of the provisions contained in section16, it applies -(a) to every establishment which is a factory engagedin any industry specified in Schedule I and in which [twenty]or more persons are employed, and(b) to any other establishment employing [twenty] ormore persons or class of such establishments which the Central Government may, by notification in the OfficialGazette, specify in this behalf: Provided that the Central Government may, aftergiving not less than two months' notice of the intention soto do, by notification in the Official Gazette, apply the O.P.No.4937 of 1999- 5 -provisions of this Act to any establishment employing suchnumber of persons less than [twenty] as may be specified inthe notification]

7.

By virtue of Ext.P3 notification clearly the coir industryexcepting the spinning sector thereof is brought within thepurview of the Act as per notification under Section 3. Clearlythe petitioners' establishment is sought to be covered underthe Act by virtue of Section 3(a) of the Act. Therefore the nextquestion would be as to whether the petitioners' establishmentis a factory engaged in a manufacturing process other thanspinning of coir yarn. Admittedly what the petitioners aredoing is only rehanking of spinned coir yarn. The ordinarydictionary meaning of 'hanking' is “putting together of severalmeasures of length of cloth or yarn together”. Therefore, essentially rehanking is the process by which spinned coir yarnis made into bundles called bales for the purpose of easyhandling and transportation. Individual coir yarns are foldedinto a specific length and those folded coir yarns are furtherbound together so as to make it into a bundle called bale.