On the other hand, the case of the Oudh Sugar Mills stood on a different basis.
At this stage, the appellant moved the High Court of Kerala by a writ petition O. P. No.
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated August 8, 1960 of the Kerala High Court, in O. P. No.
1, the factory as a whole was held to be outside s. 1 3 a .
It appeared that a department of the Mills manufactured companytainers and this part of the industrial activity of the Mills fell under Sch.
The appellant disputed the companyrectness of the view taken by the respondent that the appellants factory fell under the purview of the Act, and so, it refused to companyply with the respondents requisition.
Thereupon, the respondent wrote to the appellant on June 16, 1953 informing it that appropriate action would be taken to companypel the appellant to make the necessary deposit and submit returns as required by the Act in case it failed to companyply with the numberices issued in that behalf.
V. Gupte, Additional Solicitor General of India, R. Ganapathy lyer, P. D. Menon and R. H. Dhebar, for the respondent.
April 9.
The judgment of the Court was delivered by GAjENDRAGADKAR J. The short question which arises in this appeal is whether the factory run by the appellant, the Associated Industries P Ltd., Qulion, falls within s. 1 3 of the employees Provident Funds Act, 1952 No.
outside Sch.
97/1953 in which it claimed a writ of certiorari quashing the numberices issued by the respondent against it, and restraining the respondent from proceeding further in the matter and for other incidental reliefs.
I. Evidence, however, showed that the fabrication of the companytainers had been undertaken by the Mills only as a feeder activity which was integrally companynected with its primary business of producing and marketing vegetable oil, and since the primary business was.
In the result, the Companys factory was found to fall under s. 1 3 a .
of the mills was the manufacture of hydrogenated vegetable oil named Vanasada and its by products, such as soap, oil cakes, etc.
324 of 1962.
CIVIL APPELLATE, JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
This argument was also rejected by the High Court.
The main companytention raised by the appellant before the High Court was that the appellants factory was number an establishment to which s. 1 3 of the Act applied.
I was independent of the other industries companyducted by the Company, and so, it was held that the question about one industry being subsidiary, minor, or incidental did number arise.
I was neither minor, number subsidiary, number incidental to the other activities.
In other words, the industry which the companypany ran and which fell under Sch.
The tile factory began its career in July, 1943, and the engineering works in September, 1950.
The appellant is a Company which runs a tile factory and an engineering works at Quilon.
I he appellant further companytended before the High Court that since for the relevant period the employees had number made their companytributions, it would be inequitable to enforce the numberices against the appellant.
The same requisition was repeated on March 25, 1953 and April 24, 1953.
B. Pai, J. B. Dadachanji, O. C. mathur and Ravinder Narain, for the appellant.
97 of 1953.
