# SOUTH GUJARAT ROOFING TILES MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION AND ANR v. STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER

- **Citation:** [1977] 1 S.C.R. 878
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1976-10-20
- **Case number:** Civil App~al No. 1947 of 1975
- **Bench:** Y. V. Chandrachud, P. K. Goswami, A. C. Gupta
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/south-gujarat-roofing-tiles-manufacturers-association-and-anr-v-state-of-6988
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

•
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.
•
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 th~ 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 acquittal 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 respondent State contende(! that the Explanation "includes" not only
the objects mentioned therein, but other articles like roofing tiles.
t·
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. ln 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 AC. 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 artciles listed therein added
ex abundallli cautela. [882 D-F; 883 Al

## Text

A
B
c
D
E
F
878
SOUTH GUJARAT ROOFING TILES MANUFACTURERS
ASSOCIATION AND ANR.
v.
STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER
October 20, 1976
[Y. V. CHANDRACHUD, P. K. GOSWAMI AND A. C. GUPTA, JJ.]
•
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.
•
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 th~ 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 acquittal 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 respondent State contende(! that the Explanation "includes" not only
the objects mentioned therein, but other articles like roofing tiles.
t·
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. ln 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 AC. 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 artciles listed therein added
ex abundallli cautela. [882 D-F; 883 Al
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil App~al No. 1947 of 1975.
G
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated
y
H
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)
Manik 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.
l-
I .,
~
-\
SOUTH GUJARAT ROOFING TILES v. GUJARAT (Gupta, !.)
87S
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 pa~tnership 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 I of the Schedule to the Minimum Wages
Act, 1948 covers Mangalore pattern roofing tiles.
Entry 22 reads
:is follows;
"Empioyment 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 accessories1
(f) Hospital ware
(g) Textile accessories
(h) Toys
(i) Glazea Tiles"
We may also refer to certain other provisions of the Minimum wages
Act which! provide, the context to the question arising for decision.
Section 2 (g) defines "scheduled employment" as meaning "any em·
ployment specified in the Schedule or any process or branch of
work forming part of such! employment".
The schedule is in two
parts.
Part H which relates to employment in agriculture only .4s
not relevant for the purpose of this aPpeal.
Section 3 authorises
the appropriate 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 fi11St time or in revising the rates so fixed,
the
appropriate Government must either
appoint committees to hold
necessary enquiries and advise it in this regard, or publish its proposals in, the matter for the information of persons ~kely to be affected
thereby.
The Government will fix or revise the minimum rates of
wages after considering .the advice of the committees or the representatioas 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 coordiinating th~ work of the committees appointed under section 51. and advising the Government generally in the
matter of fixing and revising miiiimum rates of wages.
Seetion 19
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
880
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1977] 1 s.c.R.
authorises the Government to appoint Inspectors for the purposes of
the1 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 contrnven'ing any provision of the Act or any rule or order made
thereunder; the punishment may extend to
imprisonment for
six
months with a fine o~ Rs.- 500/-.
Under section 27 the appropriate
Government after giving by notification in the official gazette not less
than three months' notice o~ its intention to adq. 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 andi the schedule in its application
to the State concerned shall be deemed to be amended accor~ingly.
Before proceeding to consider the rival contentions,
we may
briefiy state the facts in the background.
On Novemb~ 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 section 5 (1)
to fix minimum rates of wages in potteries industry.
The committee
submitted fl:s 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
riot 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 las included in item 22 and sent its
report to the Government.
On May 12, 1975 the State Government
issued a notification accepting the recommendations of the committee
and ga>e 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 tμrns 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"
.(
SOUTH GUJARAT ROOFING TILES v. GUJARAT (Gupta, J.)
881
specified therein.
Pottery in a wide sense will take in all objects 1that
are made from clay and hardened by fire, froin crude earthen pots to
delicate porcelain.
Mr. Patel appearing 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
including 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 occurring in the body of the statute,
Mr. Patel submits that the Explanation, when it says that potteries
industry 'includes' the nine named objects, what is meant is that it
includes not only these objects but other articles of pottery as well.
It is true that 'includes' is generally used as a word of extension, but
the me~ing 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"· Commissioner of Stamps,(') 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 pharase 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 mentioned out of
abundant
caution to emphasize the comprehensive character of the entry,
to
indicate that all varitie!! ·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 wellrecognised articles 'bf 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 intended to be exhaustive
of the objects covered by entry 22.
According to Mr. Tarkunde if
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
the legislature wanted to bring within the entry all possible articles
H
of pottery then there was hardly any point in mentioning only a few
of them by way of Explanation. To this Mr. Patel's reply is that it
(1) (1899) A.C. 105-106.
A
B
c
D
882
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1977] 1 S.C.R.
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 legislature would not have used the word
'includes'
only. "We d~ not think there could be any inflexible rule that the
word. mclude should be read always as a word of extension without
ref~rence 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,
curinge 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" bestdes 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 suggest a different intention.
Pottery is an expression of very
E
wide import, embracing all objects made of clay and hardened by
heat. If it had been the legislature's intention 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
industry or the articles listed therein added ex abundanti cautela.
It
seems to us therefore that the legislature did not intend every thing
F
that the potteries industry turns 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'
manufacture 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;
G
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,(') which is usually referred
to on the use of 'include' as a word of extension, is followed by these
lines : "But the word 'include' is susceptible of another construction,
H
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 expressions defined.
It may
be equivalent to 'mean and include', and in that case it may afford an
(1} (1899)A.C.I05-106
•
SOUTH GUJARAT ROOFING TILES V. GUJARAT" (Gupta, J.)
,883
exhaustive explanation of the meaning which, for the purposes of the
A
Act, must invariably be attached to these words or expressions". It
must therefore be held that the manufacture 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 Mangalore pattern roofing
~·
tiles is quashed.
The members of the first appellant are permitted to
B
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 .
•