T.H.B. Chalapathi, J.
1. This writ petition is filed to quash the order of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner dated May 14, 1981 as confirmed by the Central Government in the order of the Legal Adviser dated May 15, 1982.
2. The Petitioner is an establishment engaged in manufacturing of artificial limbs to meet the requirement of disabled individuals. It employed more than 20 persons in the establishment. The disabled persons come to the petitioner-centre for getting the artificial limbs fixed. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner by his order dated May 14, 1981 vide Annexure P-l applied the provisions of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act. The Petitioner raised an objection that it is hospital and falls under the category of hospitals and, therefore, the provisions of the said Act are not applicable, but both the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and the Central Government held that the petitioner-centre is not a Hospital, but covered by item No. 3, of Schedule I of the said Act. The Petitioner-centre is liable by the provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act (hereinafter called 'the Act').
3. Challenging the said orders, the petitioner-centre approached this Court by way of this writ petition.
4. The only point that arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether the petitioner-centre is a Hospital or Industry coming within Sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Act. Sub-section (3) of Section 1 reads as follows :
'(a) to every establishment which is factory engaged in any industry specified in Schedule 1 and in which 20 or more persons are employed and :
(b) to any other establishment employing 20 or more persons or class of such establishments which the Central Government may by notification in the official Gazette, specify in this behalf.
Provided that the Central Government may, after giving not less than two months notice of its intention so to do by Notification in the official Gazette, apply the provisions of this Act to any establishment employing such number of persons less than 20 as may be specified in the Notification.'
5. Admittedly, the petitioner-centre is manufacturing artificial limbs for the use of disabled persons. According to the petitioner's contention, their establishment is a Hospital. Therefore, the Hospital does not come within the definition of industry under the Act and therefore the provisions of the Act are not applicable to them. There cannot be any dispute that the petitioner-centre is not treating the patients, and as such, they are manufacturing artificial limbs by skilled workmanship and fix the same to the disabled persons. According to the Oxford Dictionary, 'Hospital' is an institution for the care of the sick and wounded or of those who require medical treatment. Admittedly, the petitioner-centre is not treating the individuals and it is only manufacturing artificial limbs for fixing them in the disabled persons. It is, therefore, to be seen whether the activity of the petitioner-centre comes within the definition of an 'industry' specified in Schedule 1 of the Act, Both the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and the Legal Adviser to Government put the petitioner-centre under the clause 'electrical, mechanical and general engineering products; Explanation (a) contained in Schedule 1 of the Act reads as follows :
'In this Schedule without prejudice to the ordinary meaning of expressions used therein.
(a) the expression 'Electrical, mechanical or general engineering products' includes :
(1) xxx xx xx
(2) xxx xx xx
(3) xxx xx xx
(4) xxx xx xx
(5) xxx xx xx
(6) xxx xx xx
(7) xxx xx xx
(8) xxx xx xx
(9) xxx xx xx
(10) xxx xx xx
(11)xxxCC
(12) xxx xx xxx
(13) xxx xx xxx
(14) xxx xx xxx
(15) xxxxxxxxx
(16)xxxxxxxx
(17) xxx xx xxx
(18) mathematical and scientific instruments.
(19) xxx xx xxx
(20) xxx xx xx
(21) xxx xx
(22) xxx xx xx
(23) xxx xx xx
(24) xxx xx xx
(25) parts and accessories of products specified in Items 1 to 24'.
6. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner as well as the Legal Adviser to Government felt that the meaning or Expression of 'electrical, mechanical or general engineering products' given in the explanation (a) is not exhaustive and it is only an inclusive definition and therefore the products, namely artificial limbs manufactured by the petitioner-centre are covered by the expression'electrical, mechanical or general engineering products'. It cannot be disputed that the expression 'electrical, mechanical and general engineering products' has a wider connotation and its meaning cannot be restricted by virtue of the explanation which is not exhaustive. Apart from that, I am of the firm opinion that the artificial limbs manufactured by the petitioner-centre will fall under the category of 'Mathematical and scientific instruments' i.e. item No. 18 to Clause (a) of the Explanation in Schedule 1. According to Oxford Dictionary, the work 'Scientific' means' of an art, practice, operation, or method; based upon or regulated by science, as opposed to mere traditional rules or empirical dexterity, of a worker of agent ; guided by a knowledge of science, acting according to scientific principles, devised on scientific principles, characterised by science or trained skill'. Thus a scientific instrument is an instrument which is manufactured only with a skilled knowledge based on science. In order to prepare an artificial limb, the persons who prepare it, must have the necessary skill and also a scientific knowledge of the limbs of the human body and an ordinary carpenter cannot manufacture an artificial limb. It requires a skilled crafts-manship based on scientific study. There cannot be any denial of the fact that the artificial limbs are produced by the result of a constructive engineering skill applied to produce such limbs with accuracy and precision.
7. In this context, it is useful to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in Regional Provident Funds Commissioner, Punjab v. Shibu Metal Works, (1965-I-LLJ-473) at p. 477 their Lordships observed as follows :
'Reverting then to the question of construing the relevant entry in Schedule 1, it is necessary to bear in mind that this entry occurs in the Act which is intended to serve a beneficient purpose. The object which the Act purports to achieve is to require that appropriate provision should be made for the employees employed in the establishment to which the Act applies and that means that in construing the material provisions of such an Act, if two views are reasonably possible, the Court should prefer the view which helps the Achievement of the object. If the words used in the entry are capable of a narrow or broad construction, each construction being reasonably possible and it appears that the broad construction would help the furtherance of the object, then it would be necessary to prefer the said construction.'
Again at page 480 of the said judgment, their Lordships observed as follows at page 480 :
'The proper way to determine the content of this entry appears to us to be to hold that all products which are generally known as electrical engineering products or mechanical products, or general engineering products are intended to be covered by the entry, and the object of Schedule 1 is to include within the scope of the Act every industry which is engaged in the manufacture of electrical engineering products, mechanical engineering products or general engineering prospects. It is the character of the products that helps to determine the content of the entry ; can the product in question be reasonably described as an electrical engineering products or a mechanical engineering product. This is the question to ask in every case, and as we have already indicated, in considering the question as to whether the product falls under thecategory of general engineering product, general engineering should be construed in the limited sense which we have already shown. It may be that in a large majority of cases, the products included within the entry may be produced by electrical or mechanical or general engineering process ; but that is not the essence of the matter. The industrial activity which manufactures the three categories of products already enumerated by us, brings the industry within the scope of Schedule 1 and, therefore, attracts the application of the Act.'
8. There cannot be any dispute that while manufacturing artificial limbs both the engineering skill and scientific skill are employed by the manufacturers. Therefore, they clearly fail within the scope of definition of electrical, mechanical and general engineering products' as specified in Schedule 1 of the Act. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the provisions of the Act are rightly applied to the petitioner-centre vide impugned orders, Annexure P-l and P-3 and I do not find any ground warranting interference with the same.
9. The writ petition fails and is, accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.