- (1.) Heard Sri Ajal Krishan, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri Sachmdra Upadhyaya, learned Counsel for respondents No. 2 and 3. Sri Arvind Kumar Goswami has appeared for respondent No. 1. Petitioners have filed this petition challenging order dated 28.11.2013 (Annexure-1) passed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Gorakhpur and the consequential notice dated 9.5.2014 (Annexure 2 to the petition). By the said order it has been said that industry of the petitioners which is a small scale industry is covered by Schedule 1 of the Employees Provident Funds & etc. Act, 1952 and by the notice petitioners have been asked to comply with the formalities under Act. The submission of learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners industry is manufacturing 'rusk' and is not making any biscuit or confectionery and as such is not covered by any item of Schedule 1 of the Act.
(2.) Learned Counsel for the respondent has drawn the attention of the Court to one of the entries of Schedule I to the Act which reads as under:-- "Biscuit-making industry including composite units making biscuits and products such as bread, confectionery, milk and milk-powder". This entry has been added by GSR 170, dated 12th March 1958 w.e.f. 30.5.1958.
(3.) A plain reading of Schedule 1 and the said entry makes it clear that any industry engaged in manufacture of biscuit, bread, confectionery and milk products including milk powder would be covered by the schedule for the purposes of applicability of the above Act. There is no dispute that the petitioner is manufacturing Rusks.;