Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

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;

17. The amendment which was made to Section 2(12) by Amendment Act 44/66 included a factory which is engaged for a period not exceeding seven months in a year, if they are engaged in any process of blending, packing or re-packing of coffee or tea. By Amendment Act 28 of 89, as pointed out, seasonal factory, was separately defined by inserting a new provision, wherein the same condition that the factory should not be engaged in the process for a period exceeding seven months in a year, found place and in clause (a) after the word blending, 'packing' was added.

24. The position after the amendment by Act 44/66 was discussed in paragraph 17 of the judgment and it was pointed out that after the amendment, a factory which is not exclusively engaged in the manufacturing process referred to in the original unamended definition of 'seasonal factory', but is engaged for a period not exceeding seven http://www.judis.nic.in months in a year in any process of blending, packing or repacking of tea or coffee would be regarded as a “seasonal factory”. Further, it was pointed out that the factories not being factories exclusively engaged in the manufacturing process referred to in the definition of “seasonal factories”, as it stood before the amendment would not be seasonal factories according to the definition as it stood before the amendment, but after the amendment, such factories come within the meaning of seasonal factories, provided, they are engaged in the process of blending, packing or repacking only for a period of not exceeding seven months in a year. At this juncture, it would be beneficial to refer to the operative portion of the said judgment, which reads as follows:-

“17..... In the present case, the position is otherwise and the context with reference to which the word “includes” was used cannot warrant a departure from the general principle that the word “includes” was one of extension and not of limitation. In the definition with which we are concerned the word “means” was also used and after exhausting the processes the engagement wherein would make a factory a “seasonal factory”, the definition included some particular processes the engagement wherein would render a factory a seasonal factory only if such particular processes were carried on for a period not exceeding seven months in a year. Thus, in the http://www.judis.nic.in present case, there is no reason for regarding the word “includes” as one of limitation. The result, therefore, is that the amendment in the present case can in no way touch those factories which before the amendment were seasonal factories within the meaning of the unamended definition. What then is the effect of the amendment? The amendment cannot be regarded as entirely redundant. The legislature brought about the amendment with a definite object and that object obviously is to enlarge the scope of the original definition and to bring within its purview some factories which before the amendment were not seasonal factories according to the restrictive meaning assigned to it by the original definition before the amendment. Before the amendment a factory to become a seasonal factory must be one which is exclusively engaged in one or more of the manufacturing processes referred to therein. But after the amendment a factory which is not exclusively engaged in the manufacturing processes referred to in the original unamended definition of “seasonal factory” but is engaged for a period not exceeding seven months in a year in any process of blending, packing or repacking of tea or coffee would be regarded as a “seasonal factory”. There may be factories which are not exclusively engaged in the manufacture of tea or coffee or any http://www.judis.nic.in manufacturing process which is incidental to or connected with any of the processes referred to in the earlier part of the definition of seasonal factory but which may be engaged in the blending, packing or repacking of tea or coffee and in other pursuits but not such pursuits as may bring them within the definition of factories. Such factories not being factories exclusively engaged in the manufacturing processes referred to in the definition of seasonal factories as it stood before the amendment would not be seasonal factories according to the definition as it stood before the amendment. But after the amendment such factories would come within the meaning of seasonal factories provided they are engaged in the process of blending, packing or repacking only for a period not exceeding seven months in a year.” The above decision clearly supports the stand taken by the appellant.

27. The admission is to the effect that original garden teas are procured from the plantations of the company and purchased from various auction centres and private vendors. In such circumstances, the first respondent cannot state that the activities carried on in the Pondicherry factory, namely, blending, packing or repacking of tea is incidental and connected with the exclusive manufacturing process of tea done elsewhere. As pointed out earlier, the appellant has nowhere admitted that the first respondent is a manufacturer of tea and the word http://www.judis.nic.in “manufacturing activity” used in paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit refers to what the factory at Pondicherry does, namely, blending and packing of tea.