PETITIONER:
SOUTH GUJARAT ROOFING TILES MANUFACTURERSASSOCIATION AND ANR
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER
DATE OF JUDGMENT20/10/1976
BENCH:
GUPTA, A.C.
CHANDRACHUD, Y.V.
GOSWAMI, P.K.
CITATION:
1977 AIR 90 1977 SCR (1) 878
1976 SCC (4) 601
ACT
Minimum Wages Act, 1948, Entry 22 Explanation Part I of
Schedule, construction of word includes--Whether potteries
Industry includes manufacture of Mangalore pattern roofing
tiles.
HEADNOTE
By a Notification issued under the Minimum Wages Act,
1948, the Government fixed the minimum rates of wages in
respect of potteries industry, on the basis of a committee’s
report. Later, proceedings were started against the second
appellant, a partnership firm .manufacturing Mangalore type
roofing tiles, on the complaint of an inspector alleging
that the partners of the firm had failed to produce their
muster roll and the wages register for his examination. The
Magistrate acquitted the appellant holding that Entry 22 did
not cover roofing tiles. The High Court affirmed the ac-
quittal on merits, but opined that manufacture of roofing
tiles was included in the potteries industry.
The appellants contended that the Articles mentioned in
the explanation were exhaustive of the objects covered by
entry 22, and did not cover roofing tiles, while the re-
spondent State contended that the Explanation "includes" not
only the objects mentioned therein, but other articles like
roofing tiles.
Allowing the appeal, the Court,
HELD: (1) The word "includes" is generally used as a
word of extension, but has been used here the sense of
means’; this is the only construction that the word can.
bear in the context. In that sense it is not a word of
extension, but limitation; it is exhaustive of the meaning
which must be given to potteries industry for the purpose of
Entry 22. [882 G-H]
Dilworth v. Commissioner of Stamps (1899 A.C. 105--106)
applied.
(2) The manufacture of Mangalore pattern roofing tiles
is outside the purview of Entry 22. The explanation could
not possibly have been introduced to extend the meaning of
potteries industry or the articles listed therein added ex
abundanti cautela. [882 D-F; 883 A]
JUDGMENT
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1947 of 1975.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order
dated 9-10-1975 of the Gujarat High Court in Special Civil
Application No. 1339/75.
V.M. Tarkunde, P.H. Parekh, Miss Manju Jatley and
(Miss) Mardk Tarkunde, for the Appellants.
D.V. Patel and M.N. Shroff, for Respondent No. 1.
K.L. Hathi and P.C. Kapur, for Respondent No. 2.
879
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
GUPTA, J.--The first appellant is an association of the
manufacturers of Mangalore pattern roofing tiles in south
Gujarat area, the other appellant, a partnership firm, is a
member of the association. The question that falls to be
determined in this appeal by special leave is whether entry
22 added by the Gujarat Government by notification dated
March 27, 1967 to Part 1 of the Schedule to the Minimum
Wages Act, 1948 covers Mangalore pattern roofing tiles.
Entry 22 reads as follows;
"Employment in potteries Industry.
Explanation: For the purpose of this entry potteries
industry includes the manufacture of the following articles
of pottery, namely:--
(a) Crockery
(b) Sanitary appliances and fittings
(c) Refractories
(d) Jars
(e) Electrical accessories
(f) Hospital ware
(g) Textile accessories ....
(h) Toys
(i) Glazed Tiles"
We may also refer to certain other provisions of the Minimum
wages Act which3 provide the context to the question arising
for decision. Section 2(g) defines "scheduled employment" as
meaning "any employment specified in the Schedule or any
process or blanch of work forming part of such employment".
The schedule is in two parts. Part 1I which relates to
employment in agriculture only As not relevant for the
purpose of this appeal. Section 3 authorises the appropri-
ate Government to fix or revise the minimum rates of wages
payable to employees in scheduled employments. Section 5
prescribes the procedure for fixing and revising minimum
wages. In fixing minimum rates of wages in respect of
any scheduled Section 5 prescribes the procedure for fixing
and revising minimum wages. In fixing minimum rates of
wages in respect of any scheduled. employment for the first
time or in revising the rates so fixed, the appropriate
Government must either appoint committees to hold, neces-
sary enquiries and advise it in this regard, or publish its
proposals in the matter for the information of
persons .likely to be affected thereby. The Government
will fix or revise the minimum rates of wages after consid-
ering the advice of the committees or the representations
received in regard to the proposals published, as the case
may be. Section 7 empowers the appropriate Government also
to appoint an advisory board for coordinating the work of
the committees appointed under section 5, and advising the
Government generally in the matter of fixing and revising
minimum rates of wages. Section 19
880
authorises the Government to appoint Inspectors for the
purposes of the Act, Sections 22 and 22-A lay down the
penalties for paying to an employee any amount less than
what is due-to him under the Act, or contravening any provi-
sion of the Act or any rule or order made thereunder; the
punishment may extend to imprisonment for six months with a
fine of Rs. 500/-. Under section 27 the appropriate Gov-
ernment after giving by notification in the official gazette
not less than three months’ notice of its intention to add
to either Part of the Schedule any employment in respect of
which-it is of opinion that minimum rates of wages should be
fixed, add such employment to the schedule by another
notification and the schedule in its application to the
State concerned shall be deemed to be amended accordingly.
Before proceeding to consider the rival contentions,
we may briefly state the facts in the background. On
November 13, 1966 the Gujarat Government issued a
notification under section 27 declaring its intention to add
"employment in potteries industry" with an ’Explanation’ to
Part I of the Schedule to the Minimum wages Act, and by
notification dated March 27, 1967 the entry was added as
entry No. 22. Later a committee was appointed under sec-
tion 5 (1 ) to fix minimum rates of wages in potteries
industry. The committee submitted its recommendations some
time in 1968. It appears from the letter dated July 10,
1968 addressed to the Government by the advisory committee
forwarding its report that the Committee had not taken into
consideration roofing tiles in the recommendations made.
By a notification dated January 8, 1969 the Government fixed
the minimum rates of wages in respect of potteries industry
on the basis of the committee’s report.On March 25, 1970 a
proceeding was started against the second appellant on the
complaint of an Inspector alleging that the partners of the
firm had failed to. produce for his examination the muster
roll and the wages Register. The appellant was acquitted
by the magistrate who held that entry 22 did not cover
roofing tiles and as such the Act was not applicable to the
industry of the accused. The State preferred an appeal to,
the High Court against the order of acquittal. The High
Court affirmed the acquittal on merits but observed that the
manufacture of roofing tiles was included in entry 22. In
1974 the Gujarat Government appointed another committee
under section 5’ of the Act to revise the minimum wages in
potteries industry. This time the committee treated the
manufacture of roofing tiles as included in item 22 and sent
its report to the Government. On May 12, 1975 the State
Government issued a notification accepting the recommenda-
tions of the committee and gave effect to the revised rates
from the next day, i.e. May 13, 1975. The appellants filed
a writ petition in the Gujarat High Court challenging the
validity of the notification dated May 12, 1975. By its
order dated October 9, 1975 the High Court dismissed the
writ petition on the view that "Mangalore pattern roofing
tiles manufactories would be covered’ within the entry".
This is how the scope of entry 22 arises for consideration
in this appeal.
The question turns on a true construction of the
Explanation to entry 22 which says that for the purpose of
this entry potteries industry "includes" the manufacture
of the nine "articles of pottery"
881
specified therein. Pottery in a wide sense will take in all
objects that are made from clay and hardened by fire, from
crude earthen pots to delicate porcelain. Mr. Patel appear-
ing for the respondent, State of Gujarat, contends that the
Explanation indicates that potteries industry in entry 22 is
intended to cover all possible articles of pottery includ-
ing Mangalore pattern roofing tiles. Referring to the
well-known use of the word ’include’ in interpretation
clauses to extend the meaning of words and phrases occur-
ring in the body of the statute, Mr. Patel submits that the
Explanation, when it says that potteries industry ’in-
cludes’ the nine named objects, what is meant is that it
includes not only these objects but other articles of pot-
tery as well. It is true that ’includes’ is generally used
as a word of extension, but the meaning of a word or phrase
is extended when it is said to include things that would not
properly fall within its ordinary connotation. We may refer
to the often-quoted observation of Lord Watson in Dilworth
v. Commissioner of Stamps, (1) that when the word ’include’
is used in interpretation clauses to enlarge the meaning of
words or phrases in the statute "these words or phrases must
be construed as comprehending, not only such things as they
signify according to their natural import but also those
things which the interpretation clause declares that they
shall include". Thus where ’includes’ has an extending
force, it adds to the word or phrase a meaning which does
not naturally belong to it. It is difficult to agree that
’includes’ as used in the Explanation to entry 22 has that
extending force. The Explanation says that for the purpose
of entry 22, potteries industry includes the manufacture of
the nine "articles of pottery" specified in the Explanation.
If the objects specified are also "articles of pottery",
then these objects are already comprised in the expression
"potteries industry". It hardly makes any sense to say that
potteries industry includes the manufacture of articles of
pottery, if the intention was to enlarge the meaning of
potteries industry in any way.
We are also unable to. agree with Mr. Patel that the
articles specified in the Explanation may have been men-
tioned out of abundant caution to emphasize the comprehen-
sive character of the entry, to indicate that all rarities
of pottery are included therein. This. argument, though
more plausible, does not also seem acceptable’. It is
possible that one might have doubts. whether things like
refractories or electrical or textile accessories would pass
under the description pottery as that word is used in
common parlance, but the Explanation also mentions crockery
and toys regarding which there could be hardly any doubt.
The inclusion in the list of objects which are well
recognised’ articles of pottery makes it plain that the
Explanation was added to the entry not by way of abundant
caution.
The contention of Mr. Tarkunde for the appellants is
that the articles mentioned in the Explanation were intend-
ed to be exhaustive of the objects covered by entry 22.
According to Mr. Tarkunde if the legislature wanted to bring
within the entry all possible articles of pottery then
there was hardly any point in mentioning only a few them by
way of Explanation. To this Mr. Patel’s reply is that it
(1) (1899) A.C. ’105-106.
882
is well-known that where the legislature wants to exhaust
the significance of the term defined, it uses the word
’means’ or the expression ’means and includes’, and that if
the intention was to make the list exhaustive, the legisla-
ture would not have used the word ’includes’ only. We-do
not think there could be any inflexible rule that the word
’include’ should be read always as a word of extension
without reference to the context. Take for instance entry
19 in the schedule which also has an Explanation .containing
the .word ’includes’. Entry 19 is as follows:
"Employment in any tobacco processing
establishment, not covered under entry No. 3.
Explanation.--For the purpose of this
entry, the expression "processing" includes
packing or unpacking, breaking up,. sieving,
thrishing, mixing, grading, drying, curing
or otherwise treating the tobacco (including
tobacco leaves and stems) in any manner."
Entry 3 to which entry 19 refers reads:
"Employment in any tobacco (including
bidi making) manufactory."
It is clear from the Explanation to entry 19 that there
could be no other way or manner of "processing" besides
what is stated as included in that expression. Though
include’ is generally used in interpretation clauses as a
word of enlargement, in some cases the context might sug-
gest a different intention. Pottery is an expression of
very wide import, embracing all objects made of clay and
hardened by heat. If it had been the legislature’s inten-
tion to bring within the entry all possible articles of
pottery, it was quite unnecessary to add an Explanation. We
have found that the Explanation could not possibly have
been introduced to extend the meaning of potteries indus-
try or the articles listed therein added ex abundanti caute-
la. It seems to us therefore that the legislature did not
intend every thing that the potteries industry tums out to
be covered by the entry. What then could be the purpose.
of the Explanation ? The Explanation says that, for the
purpose of entry 22, potteries industry ’includes’ manufac-
ture of the. nine articles of pottery named therein. It
seems to us that the word ’includes’ has been used here in
the sense of ’means’, this is the only construction that
the word can bear in the. context. In that sense it is not
a word of extension, but limitation; it is exhaustive of the
meaning which must be given to potteries industry for the
purpose of entry 22. The use of the word ’includes’ in the
restrictive sense is not unknown. The observation of Lord
Watson in Dilworth v. Commissioner of Stamps,(1) which is
usually referred to on the use of ’include’ as a word of
extension,’ is followed by these lines: "But the word ’i-
nclude’ is susceptible of another construction, which may
become imperative, if the context of the Act is sufficient
to show that it was not merely employed for the purpose of
adding to the natural significance of the words or expres-
sions defined. It may be equivalent to ’mean and include’,
and in that case it may afford an
( 1899)A.C. 105--106
883
exhaustive explanation of the meaning which, for the pur-
poses of the Act, must invariably be attached to these words
or expressions". It must therefore be held that the manufac-
ture of Mangalore pattern roofing tiles is outside the
purview of entry 22.
The appeal is allowed with costs against respondent no.
1, dated May 12, 1975 in so far as it applies to the Manga-
lore pattern roofing tiles is quashed. The members of the
first appellant are permitted to withdraw any sum they had
deposited in the Gujarat High Court pursuant to the order of
this Court made on April 2, 1976.
M.R, Appeal allowed.
884