Supreme Court of India
OSMANIA UNIVERSITY versus REGIONAL DIRECTOR, EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION, ANDHRA PRADESH AND ORS.
- Decided
- 8 October 1985
- Judges listed
- O. CHINNAPPA REDDY
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Citations
- Official
- [1985] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 589 · 1985 INSC 223
- Also cited as
- (1985) 4 SCC 514
Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.
- Not shown
- 1 other citation string that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.
Cited by
Cited in 1 other Supreme Court judgment we hold.
Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.
The Court's text
Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.
BALAKRISHNA ERADI, J, : The short question that arises for our determination in this appeal, which has been filed on the basis of a certificate granted by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh is whether the provisions of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 are applicable in respect of the employees working in the Department of Publications and Press of the Osmania University, A llivision Bench of the High Court has answered the said question in the affirmative differing from the contrary view expressed by a learned Single Judge, who had allowed a Writ Petition filed by the University. In the light of the said conclusion, the Division Bench set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge and dismissed the Writ Petition. Under clause ( 4) of Section l of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short 'the act') the Act will apply to all 'factories' including factories belonging to the Government other than seasonal factories. The expression hfactory" has been defined in Section 2(12) of the Act in the following terms:- "2(12) "factory" means any premises including the precincts thereof whereon twenty or more persons are employed or were employed for wages on any day of the preceding twelve months, and in any part of which a manufacturing process is being· carried on with the aid of power or is ordinarily so carried on but does not include a mine subject to the operation of the Mines Act, 1952 (35 of 1952) or a railway running shed; "seasonal factory" means a factory which is exclusively engaged in one or more of the following manuf acturing processes, namely cotton ginning, cotton or pressing, decortication of groundnuts, the manufacture of coffee, indigo, lac, rubber, sugar (including or tea or any manufacturing process which is dental to or connected with any of the aforesaid processes; (and includes a factory which is engaged for a period not exceeding seven months in a year - (a) in any process of blending, packing, or repacking of tea or coffee; or (b) in such other manufacturing process as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette specify;) The expression "manufacturing process" and "power" shall have the meaning respectively assigned to
pp. 590–591, margin C
in the Factories Act, 1948 (63 of 1948),"
p. 591, margin D
Clause (k) of Section 2 of the Factories Act defines expression 'Manufacturing process'. $or the purposes of this we need refer to only sub-clause (i) of the said definition clause. That sub-clause states that Manufacturing Process any process for "making, altering, repairing, ornamenting, finishing, packing, oiling, washing, cleaning, breaking demolishing, or otherwise treating or. adapting any article substance with a view to its use,. sale, transport, delivery disposal".
p. 591, margin D
In the connected appeal - C.A. No. 204 of 1973 filed same appellant, ·we had occasion to consider whether Department of Publications and Press run by the University liable for coverage under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 together with Schemes and Notifications. In our judgment in that appeal we have taken view that the said department is engaged in carrying 'manufacturing process' in the printing of text books, journals, forms and other items of stationery. The definition manufacturing process" contained in Section 2(1-c) of Employees• Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act identical in all respects with that contained in ·section 2(k)(i) of the Factories Act.
p. 591, margin E
In the light of the aforesaid conclusion recorded by us in C.A. No. 204 of 1973 it must be held that the department in question is a 'factory' within the meaning of the said expression as defined in Section 2 (12) of the Act. The judgment under appeal does not, therefore, call for any interference.
p. 592, margin A
This appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs. N.V.K. Appeal dismissed.
p. 592, margin B