TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1962 (1) TMI 95
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....orkers employed in the factory. The records of the factory disclosed that on 31-10-1952 there were actually 81 employees. In March 1957, the petitioner obtained aid from the State Government under the scheme of State aid to small industries in a sum of Rs. 19000. He started producing "merry-go-rounds" only thereafter. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner by his communication dated 2-3-1957 initimated the petitioner that his factory was engaged in the manufacture of "general engineering products" and that therefore it was under the purview of the Employees Provident Fund Act. The petitioner was called upon to submit returns with particulars of employees in the factory and to make remittance of arrears of contribution for provident fund for the period of 1-11-1952 to 28-2-1956. The petitioner failed to comply with that requisition of the Commissioner. The Central Government by its communication dated 13-1-1958 gave the ruling, presumably under Section 19-A of the Act that the petitioner's factory is within the Act. The petitioner's contention is that his factory is only manufacturing toys, that it is not within Schedule 1 of the Act, and that there is no notification by t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eneral engineering products. Quite obviously the petitioner is engaged in the manufacture of mechanical products as he manufactures perambulators, tricycles, scooters, merry-go-rounds and garden swing cradles etc. Mere manufacture of wooden toys like rocking horses will not amount to manufacture of mechanical products. It seems to me that the petitioner is partly engaged in the manufacture of mechanical products and partly engaged in the manufacture of other articles and commodities not comprised in Schedule I. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the dominant industry of the petitioner is the wooden toy industry and that the manufacture of perambulators, pedalling cars and merry-go-rounds is only a subsidiary industry, and that the applicability of the Act cannot therefore be attracted. I must observe even at the outset that there is no foundation at all for this argument as no materials have been placed before the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, and of course not before me, to show that the manufacture of toys is the dominant industry of the petitioner. There is nothing to show that the petitioner has devoted the major portion of his capital only for produ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....en all the intermediate products which are produced for carrying on that industry cannot be regarded as separate industries. Therefore, the mere fact that any of these products was included in the Schedule will not bring the Act into operation." Tambe J. observed as follows at the same page : "In my view, the determining factor is whether in any part of a factory any manufacturing process is going on and whether the manufactured article is such which falls within the meaning of the First Schedule. But to attract the Act this alone is not sufficient. The number of persons employed in the unit engaged in the manufacture of such articles must be fifty or more." The same Division Bench of the Bombay High Court decided another case arising under the same Act and that is reported in Nagpur Glass Works Ltd. v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, (S) (1958)ILLJ281Bom . The principal business of the petitioner in the case was the manufacture of glass. The petitioner was also engaged in the business of manufacture of burners and metal lamps (consisting of glass oil containers and globe of metal burners and reflectors). The schedule to the Act does not include glass industry.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ndustry was one engaged in the manufacture of pencils, and that being not listed in Schedule I to the Act, the Act was not applicable. The observation of the learned Judge emphasising the difference between primary purpose and incidental purpose has got to be understood in the back ground of the peculiar facts of the case with which he was dealing. I do not think that the learned Judge intended to lay down the proposition of law that in order to attract the Act to a particular industry the dominant purpose of that industry must relate to its being engaged in the manufacture of the products listed in the first schedule to the Act. Indeed the following observation of the learned Judge at page 238 is significant : "Of course, I agree that a factory may be engaged in producing more than one article. In such a case it would be perfectly correct to say that the factory is engaged in producing all those articles." This observation is followed by another observation upon which the learned counsel for the petitioner strongly relied : "I have no doubt whatever that the word 'engaged' In Sub-section (3) of Section 1 refers to the primary activity of the factory." ....