https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193002 The Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1952 was construed as a welfare statute requiring a beneficial and purposive interpretation, so Schedule I was read broadly in light of the definitions and explanatory amendments. The expressions "industry", "manufacture" and "textiles" were given their commercial and practical meaning, and dyeing, printing, bleaching and finishing of textile goods were treated as part of textile manufacture or production. The later amendment was treated as clarificatory rather than as excluding the activity under the unamended Act. The factory was therefore covered by Schedule I, the compliance notice was valid, and the petition was dismissed. en-us Mon, 15 Nov 1954 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 07 Jul 2017 14:23:49 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193002 The Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1952 was construed as a welfare statute requiring a beneficial and purposive interpretation, so Schedule I was read broadly in light of the definitions and explanatory amendments. The expressions "industry", "manufacture" and "textiles" were given their commercial and practical meaning, and dyeing, printing, bleaching and finishing of textile goods were treated as part of textile manufacture or production. The later amendment was treated as clarificatory rather than as excluding the activity under the unamended Act. The factory was therefore covered by Schedule I, the compliance notice was valid, and the petition was dismissed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 15 Nov 1954 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193002