Restrictive use of "includes" in statutory definitions keeps Mangalore pattern roofing tiles outside the pottery industry entry.

The Court interpreted Entry 22 of Part I of the Minimum Wages Act Schedule and held that the word "includes" in the Explanation was used restrictively, meaning "means", rather than enlarging the scope of the entry. The nine specified pottery articles were treated as exhaustive for that definition, because the context showed no intent to extend coverage to all pottery products. On that construction, manufacture of Mangalore pattern roofing tiles fell outside Entry 22, and the appellants succeeded.

---

---

Issues: Whether the expression "employment in potteries industry" in Entry 22 of Part I of the Schedule to the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 covered the manufacture of Mangalore pattern roofing tiles.

Analysis: The opening words of the Explanation to Entry 22 used the term "includes" in relation to the manufacture of nine specified articles of pottery. The setting and language of the entry showed that the listed articles were not added by way of enlargement or abundant caution, because several of them were plainly within the ordinary sense of pottery and the Explanation would otherwise serve no useful extension. In the context of the entry, the word "includes" was used in the restrictive sense of "means", making the listed articles exhaustive for the purpose of the entry rather than illustrative of all pottery products.

Conclusion: The manufacture of Mangalore pattern roofing tiles was held to be outside Entry 22, and the appellants succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: The word "includes" in an interpretation clause may, according to context, be used restrictively as equivalent to "means", so that the specified items exhaust the scope of the defined expression.

---