D.S.Mathur, J. - (1.) This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by The Delhi Cloth and General Mills Company Ltd., Delhi (to be referred hereinafter as the petitioner or the petitioner Mill) for the issue of a writ of mandamus to direct the respondent, namely, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, not to take any steps under the Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1952 (to be referred hereinafter as the Act) for enforcing the Employees' Provident Funds Scheme (to be referred hereinafter as the Scheme) in respect of the petitioner's distillery and confectionery at Daurala; and also to direct the respondent to withdraw his letter dated 9-3-1957, Annexure 'B' to the affidavit.
(2.) The petitioner is a Company registered under the Indian Companies Act, and it owns a number of factories including textile mills, sugar factories, distillery and confectionery. In village Daurala of district Meerut, there is a sugar factory belonging to the petitioner known as "Daurala Sugar Works', The petitioner also has a distillery and a confectionery close to "Daurala Sugar Works'. Toffees, hard-boiled sweets, soft-centred sweets and sugar cubes are manufactured in the confectionery. The petitioner's case is that the three works are situate in premises of their own and they constitute different factories. The respondent, on the other hand, asserts that they are situate within the same premises, are bounded by a common boundary wall and constitute one composite factory. The provisions of the Act were applied to industries engaged in the manufacture of sugar under Notification No. S. R. O. 1566 dated 4-7-11956, but coming into effect from 31-7-1956. Mineral oil refining industry was included in Schedule I later and the Act became applicable to such an industry with effect from 31-1-1957. The dispute that exists between the parties is whether for purposes of the Act all the three industries, namely, the manufacture of sugar, confectionery and distillery, shall constitute One factory, or they are in the eye of law three different factories. If the three constitute one factory, the provisions of the Act and also the Scheme shall apply to the employees of all the three, that is of the sugar factory, distillery and confectionery. But if the sugar factory constitutes a distinct factory and the others are in the eye of law factories by themselves, the Act and also the Scheme shall not automatically apply to these two factories unless they are covered or were later on included in Schedule I of the Act. In other words, the point for consideration is what is the unit of factory for purposes of the Act and the Scheme.
(3.) The petitioner had given certain data or the sugar factory, distillery and confectionery in its petition and also the affidavit and when these facts were controverted in the counter-affidavit and additional data was then supplied, the petitioner filed a rejoinder affidavit. During the hearing of the petition it became necessary to obtain further information from the petitioner with regard to the location of the sugar factory, distillery and confectionery, and it was at that stage that additional information was furnished by the parties. In view of these affidavits there does not exist any material controversy on the facts of the case, and these facts I shall reproduce in this judgment later while considering whether the three constitute one unit of factory for purposes of the Act and the Scheme, or diey constitute different factories.;