Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. (TCS), challenged the decision of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and the Appellate Tribunal that TCS was covered under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 by virtue of a notification dated 17th May 1971. The notification extended the Act to 'every establishment rendering expert services such as supplying of personnel, advice on domestic or departmental enquiries, special services in rectifying pilferage, thefts and pay roll irregularities to factories and establishments' employing 20 or more persons. TCS argued that its business of software consultancy and services did not fall within the type of expert services specified in the notification. The court analyzed the language of the notification and held that while the expression 'such as' is illustrative and not exhaustive, the examples given indicate the genus of expert services intended. Applying the principle of ejusdem generis, the court concluded that TCS's activities were not analogous to the listed services. The court allowed the petition, setting aside the orders of the authorities below.
Headnote
A) Employees' Provident Funds - Coverage of Establishments - Notification under Section 1(3)(b) - Interpretation of 'such as' - The expression 'such as' in the notification dated 17th May 1971 is illustrative and not exhaustive, but an establishment must render expert services of the type adverted to in the notification to fall within its purview. - Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, Section 1(3)(b) - The court held that Tata Consultancy Services Ltd., being a software consultancy and services company, does not render expert services of the type specified in the notification (supplying personnel, advice on domestic or departmental enquiries, special services in rectifying pilferage, thefts and pay roll irregularities) and therefore is not covered. (Paras 1-3)
B) Statutory Interpretation - Illustrative Expressions - 'Such as' - The phrase 'such as' is generally used to introduce examples and is not exhaustive, but the examples given indicate the genus of the items intended. - The court relied on Royal Hatcheries Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of A.P. and Central Bank of India vs. Ravindra to hold that the notification must be construed ejusdem generis. (Paras 2-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. falls within the purview of the notification dated 17th May 1971 extending the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 to establishments rendering expert services, and whether the expression 'such as' in the notification is exhaustive or illustrative.
Final Decision
The court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the orders of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and the Appellate Tribunal, holding that Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. is not covered under the notification dated 17th May 1971.
Law Points
- Interpretation of 'such as' as illustrative not exhaustive
- ejusdem generis
- purposive construction of notification under Section 1(3)(b) of Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act
- 1952
Case Details
2006 LawText (BOM) (09) 23
WRIT PETITION NO.1246 OF 2005
Mr.K. M. Naik with Mr. S. P. Salkar for the Petitioner, Mr.M. S. Karnik for Respondent No.1
Tata Consultancy Services Ltd.
The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner & Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the coverage of the petitioner under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 by virtue of a notification dated 17th May 1971.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought to quash the orders of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and the Appellate Tribunal holding that TCS is covered under the Act.
Filing Reason
The adjudicating authorities held that Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. is an establishment rendering expert services within the meaning of the notification dated 17th May 1971.
Previous Decisions
The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and the Appellate Tribunal held that TCS is covered under the Act.
Issues
Whether the expression 'such as' in the notification dated 17th May 1971 is exhaustive or illustrative.
Whether Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. renders expert services of the type covered by the notification.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the words 'expert services' are followed by 'such as', which lists specific types of establishments, and TCS does not fall within those categories.
Respondent argued that 'such as' is illustrative and any establishment rendering expert services is covered.
Ratio Decidendi
The expression 'such as' in the notification is illustrative but not exhaustive; however, an establishment must render expert services of the type adverted to in the notification (ejusdem generis). Tata Consultancy Services Ltd., being a software consultancy and services company, does not render expert services of the type specified (supplying personnel, advice on domestic or departmental enquiries, special services in rectifying pilferage, thefts and pay roll irregularities) and therefore is not covered.
Judgment Excerpts
The issue which arises in these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India turns upon the interpretation of a notification issued by the Central Government in the exercise of the power conferred by Section 1(3)(b) of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952.
The question before the Court is whether any and every establishment rendering expert services is within the purview of the notification dated 17th May 1971 or whether, as submitted by the Petitioner, establishments analogous to those which have specifically been listed out would fall within the purview of the notification.
This Court is of the view that while the expression 'such as', it is well settled, is illustrative and not exhaustive, an establishment, to be within the purview of the notification should be rendering expert services of the type adverted to in the notification.
Procedural History
The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and the Appellate Tribunal held that Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. is covered under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 by virtue of the notification dated 17th May 1971. The petitioner challenged these orders by way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952: Section 1(3)(b)
