HYDERABAD PAINTING WORKS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, Hyderabad Painting works, seeks to issue a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ to call for the records relating to the order of the 1st respondent, viz., the Union of India in No. S. 35011/1 (2) PFC dated 2-7-1981 and to quash the same.

(2.) The facts of the case are. The petitioner-factory was established in the year 1970 and is engaged in and carrles on the job-work of painting industrial components. It receives fan blades, sewing machine componants, etc., from its customers for purposes of painting. After receipt of those components, they are washed with the Help of chemicals and thereafter they are given a coat of Phosphate and ultimately they are painted and returned to the customer. For parrying on this process more than 20 persons are engaged. White so the petitioner received a coverage intimation from the Regional Provident Commissioner, Andhra Pradesh informing that the factory was engaged in "Electrical, Mechanical and General Engineering" which is included in Schedule-1 of Employees Provident Funds and Micellaneous Provisions Act ('herein after referred to as "the Act") and that it employed 23 persons and therefore the provisions of the Act are appticable and they should be implemented by the petitioner-factdry. The petitioner put forward some objections to the Central Government under Section 19-A of the Act. The concerned authority, after giving an opportunity to the petitioner passed impugned order holding that painting the fan blades, sewing machine components is part of the manufacture or manufacturing process as defined in the Act and that the provisions of the Act are applicable to the petitioner, factory. It is this order that is challenged in this writ petition.

(3.) Sri M S R. Subrahmanyam the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner-factory does the job-work of painting and is not an industry engaged in manufacturing of any Electrical, mechanical or General engineering produces, parts or accessories. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner-factory is engaged only in painting of components and the same cannot amount to manufacturing process in as much as they do not manufacture any products as such or part Component or accessories of any such product. For a proper consideration of this contention it becomes necessary to examine the relevant provisions. Section 1 (3) (a) which deals with applicability of the Act reads thus:-