(2009] 11 S.C.R. 705

MIS. QAZI NOORUL H.H.H. PETROL PUMP & ANR.

DY. DIRECTOR, ESf CORPORATIO~

(Civil Appeal No. 5840 of 2004)

JULY 29, 2009 B

[MARKANDEY KAT JU AND H.L. DATIU, JJ.]

Employees' State lnsilrtmce Act, 1948:

->I

ss. 1(4), 2(12), 2(14-AA), 2(15-C), 45-C and 45-G - c 'Factory' - "Manufacturing process" - "Power" - Petrol Pump

- Received order requiring it to make contribution under the Act - Plea that Petrol Pump was not 'factory' within the meaning of ss.1(4) 'and 2(12) of the Act - HELD: In view of ss.2(14-AA) and 2(15-C) of the Ac):, 'manufacturing process' D and 'power' are given the same meaning as under the , .... - ..

Factories Act - Pumping the oil is a manufacturing process under s. 2(k) of the Factories Act - Petrol Pump does the work of pumping the oil - Therefore, the Employees' State Insurance Act applies to it - Claim of Petrol Pump dismised E

- Factories Act, 1948 - s.2(k) - Interpretation of Statutes - Uteral rule of interpretation.

Interpretation of Statutes:

~· Literal rule of interpretation - HELD: Once the statute is F -.l clear, the literal rule of interpretation applies and there is no need to go into the object and intention of statute - Language used in s.2(k)(ii) of Factories Act is clear- Factories Act, 1948

- s.2(k)(ii).

Words and Phrases: G

i Expression 'manufacturing process' - Occurring in s.2 _,. ~

(14-AA) of Employees' State lnsuranc& Act and s.2 (k) of Factories Act - Connotation of

705 H

A Word 'factory' occurring in s.2(12) of Employees' State Insurance Act - Connotation of.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5840 of 2004.

B From the Judgment & Order dated 24.1.2003 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Petition No. 53564 of 2002.

Dinesh Dwivedi, Prateek Dwivedi, Vandana Mishra

lo. c Manish Kumar, Ashutosh Kr. Sharma (for Shail Kumar Dwivedi) for the' Appellants.

V.J. Francis for the Respondents.

The following Order of the Court was delivered D

ORDER

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. "'

2. This Appeal has been filed against the impugned E judgment of the Allahabad High Court dated 24th January, 2003

passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.53564 of 2002. By the impugned judgment, the High Court has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant herein.

3. The appellant is running a petrol pump (public retail outlet) for dispensing petrol/diesel. He filed the aforesaid Writ ..

Petition No. 53564 of 2002 in the High Court of Allahabad challenging an order dated 17th October, 2002 issued by the Deputy Director, Employees State Insurance Corporation,

G Regional Office, Kanpur directing the appellant to make contribution under the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short 'the Act') from August, 1993 to May, 2000 and interest on the aforesaid amount failing which recovery shall be issued " under Sections 45-C and 45-G of the Act.

4. The short question in this case is whether the appellant

QAZI NOORUL H.H.H. PETROL PUMP & ANR. v. DY. 707

DIRECTOR, ESI CORPORATION

- ... is covered by the Act. Section 1 (4) of the Act states that the A Act, in the first instance, shall apply to all factories. Section 2( 12) of the Act provides:

"(12) "factory" means any premises including the precincts

thereof~ B

(a) whereon ten 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 er is ordinarily so carried on, or c

(b) 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 without the aid of power or is ordinarily D

- "'

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;)"

6. The expressions "manufacturing process'' as well as E "power" used in the Act have been given the same meaning as in the Factories Act, 1948, vide Sections 2(14-AA) and Section 2(15-C) of the Act. - Section 2(k) of the Factories Act, 1948 defines

~ "manufacturing process" as follows: F

"(k) "manufacturing process" means process for-

(i) making, altering, repairing, ornamenting, finishing, packing, oiling, washing, cleaning, breaking up, demolishing, or otherwise treating or adapting any article G or substance with a view to its use, sale, transport, delivery -

~ or disposal, or

(ii) pumping oil, water, sewage or any other substance, or H

)f A

(iii) generating, transforming or transmitting power, or

(iv) composing types for printing, printing by letter press, litho_graphy, photogravure or other similar process or book binding;

(v) constructing, reconstructing, repairing, refitting, finishing or breaking up ships or vessels; or

(vi) preserving or storing any article in cold storage;" ..

7. A perusal of the aforasaid provision shows that pumping oil is also a manufacturing process.

8. In this connection, it may be stated that the words "manufacturing process" in different statutes have different meanings. For instance, in the Central Excise Act, 1944, the D word "manufacture" means bringing into existence a different commodity, though this is not the definition of "manufacturing .. -

process" in the Factories Act, 1948. We cannot apply the definition of "manufacturing process" in one Statute to another Statute.

10. Section 2(k), sub-clause (ii) of the Factories Act, 1948 states that pumping oil is a manufacturing process. Admittedly, the appellant does the work of pumping oil. When we go to a Petrol Pump for getting petrol or diesel, the petrol or diesel is - in a tank and it does not on its own flow from the tank to the >- F pipe and thereafter into the vehicle, but only by means of a pump by using power.

11. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that we should see the object and intention of the G Statute. It is well settled that once the Statute is clear, the literal

Rule of Interpretation applies, and there is no need to go into )f -. the object and intention of the Statute (vide article entitled 'A Note on Interpretation of Statutes' by Markandey Katju, J., published in the Journal Section of AIR 2007 SC page 22). In H the present case, Section 2(14-AA) of the Act states that

' ' 4

' .-

QAZI NOORUL H.H.H. PETROL Pl:JMP & ANR. v. DY. 709

DIRECTOR, ESI CORPORATION

"manufacturing process" shall have the meaning assigne~:f to it A in the Factories Act, 1948. In the Factories Act, 1948, Section 2(k) of the Act includes pumping oil as a manufacturing process.

11. In our opinion, the only rule of interpretation which 8 applies to the facts of the present case is the Literal Rule of Interpretation, which means that we should go simply by the wording of the Statute and nothing else and there is no scope for applying any other Rule of Interpretation. In our opinion, the language used in Section 2(k)(ii) of the Fctories Act, 1948 is C clear. Hence, the Act applies t~ the appellant and the respondent was right in issuing notice to the appellant for making contribution and interest thereon for the period in question.

12. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed. No costs.

D However, we reduce the rate of interest to 10% on the principal amount.

R.P.

Appeal dismissed.