{"id":69241,"date":"1985-10-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1985-10-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/andhra-university-etc-vs-regional-provident-fund-on-8-october-1985"},"modified":"2016-01-26T07:37:53","modified_gmt":"2016-01-26T02:07:53","slug":"andhra-university-etc-vs-regional-provident-fund-on-8-october-1985","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/andhra-university-etc-vs-regional-provident-fund-on-8-october-1985","title":{"rendered":"Andhra University Etc vs Regional Provident Fund … on 8 October, 1985"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Andhra University Etc vs Regional Provident Fund … on 8 October, 1985<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1986 AIR 463, \t\t 1985 SCR Supl. (3) 582<\/div>\n
Author: V B Eradi<\/div>\n
Bench: Eradi, V. Balakrishna (J)<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nANDHRA UNIVERSITY ETC.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nREGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER OF ANDHRA PRAfESH AND A\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT08\/10\/1985\n\nBENCH:\nERADI, V. BALAKRISHNA (J)\nBENCH:\nERADI, V. BALAKRISHNA (J)\nREDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J)\nKHALID, V. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1986 AIR  463\t\t  1985 SCR  Supl. (3) 582\n 1985 SCC  (4) 509\t  1985 SCALE  (2)752\n\n\nACT:\n     Employes' Provident  Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions\nAct, sections  1(3)(a), 2(1-C),\t 2(g) and  2(a), scope\tof -\nWhether\t the   establishments  namely,\tthe  Departments  of\nPublications  and   Press  of\tthe   Andhra   and   Osmania\nUniversities are \"factories\" and their activities fall under\n\"manufacture\"  and   therefore\tthey  are  governed  by\t the\nprovisions of  the said\t Act -\tInterpretation of  the\tword\n\"establishment\" in section 2-A.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     The  Employees'   Provident  Funds\t  and  Miscellaneous\nProvisions Act\tapplies to  every establishment\t which is  a\n\"factory\" engaged  in and \"industry\" specified in Schedule I\nand  in\t  which\t 20   or  more\tpersons\t are  employed.\t The\nexpressions  \"manufacture\"  and\t \"factory\"  are\t defined  in\nsection 2(1-C)\tand 2(g)  of  the  Act.\t The  establishments\nnamely, the Departments of Publications and Press of the two\nUniversities  each   employing\t100  persons,  run  printing\npresses, where\tthe work of printing of text books, journals\nand magazines  for the\tvarious constituent  and  affiliated\ncolleges as  well as  of various items of stationery such as\nadmission forms to colleges, hostels and examinations, forms\nof memo\t of parks,  hall' tickets, answer books, syllabi for\nvarious colleges  and departments,  registers, receipt books\nfor colleges  and hostels  and letter heads for Universities\ncarried out. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner called\nupon the  two Universities  to submit  their monthly returns\nand remit  the amounts\tof contribution\t as required  by the\nprovisions  of\tthe  scheme  covered  under  the  Employees'\nProvident Funds\t and Miscellaneous  Provisions Act. Two writ\npetitions were therefore, filed by the appellants separately\nchallenging the\t legality and validity of the notices issued\nto  them   by  the  Regional  Provident\t Fund  Commissioner,\ncontending (i)\tthat the Universities are purely educational\ninstitutions having a Dumber of departments, the main object\nof which  is to impart education to the youth of the country\nin  various   branches\tof   Students,\tand  therefore,\t the\nDepartment of  Publications and Press which is intended only\nto cater the needs and requirement of the students cannot be\nregarded  either   as  a   \"factory\"  or  as  an  \"industry\"\nattracting the\tprovisions of the Act; ant (11) that the two\nUniversities had their own provident\n583\nfund schemes  for their\t employees and\ttherefore, there was\njustification for  subjecting them  to the provisions of the\nAct. A\tlearned Single Judge of the High Court accepting the\nsaid conventions  allowed the  writ petitions.\tHowever,  on\nappeals filed  by the  Regional Provident Fund Commissioner,\nAndhra Pradesh, the Division Bench by two separate judgments\nset aside the judgments of the learned Single Judge and held\nthat the Department of Publications and Press of each of the\ntwo Universities  is an\t \"establishment\" which\tis a factory\nengaged in  an industry\t specified in  Schedule I,  in which\nmore than  20 persons were employed and hence the provisions\nof the\tAct ant\t the Scheme  were applicable  in respect  of\nthese Departments. Hence the appeals by special leave.\n     Dismissing the appeals, the Court,\n^\n     HELD :  1.1 To attract the provisions of the Employees'\nProvident Funds\t and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, two tests\nnamely,\t whether  there\t is  an\t establishment\twhich  is  a\n\"factory\" engaged  in any  of the  scheduled industries\t and\nwhether\t 20  or\t more  persons\tare  employed  in  the\tsaid\nestablishment must be fulfilled. [587 F]\n     1.2 Printing  is one  of the  industries  specified  in\nSchedule I of the Act ant it is admitted that much more than\n20 persons  are employed  in the  concerned establishment of\nthe two Universities [588 A]\n     1.3 The  Departments  of  Publications  ant  Press\t are\n\"factories\" as\tdefined in  clause (g)\tof section  2 of the\nAct. Under the\tdefinition, \"factory\" means any premises, in\nany part  of which  a manufacturing process is being carried\non. The\t Printing of  text books, journals, registers, forms\nant  various   items  of   stationery\tclearly\t  constitute\n\"manufacture\" within  the meaning  of the said expression as\ndefined in  clause (1-C)  of section 2 of the Act. [587 G-H;\n588 A]\n     1.4 It  is therefore clear that all the requirements of\nclause\t 3(a) of  section (l) of the Act are fully satisfied\nin the cases and hence the decision of the Division Bench of\nthe High  Court upholding the validity of the notices issued\nby the\trespondent, Regional provident Fund Commissioner, is\nperfectly correct ant justified. [588 A-B]\n     Visva Bharati  v. Regional Provident fund Commissioner,\nWest Bengal, [1983] 1 L.L.J. 332 overruled.\n     2.1 In  construing the  provisions\t of  the  Employees'\nProvident funds ant Miscellaneous Provisions Act, it must be\n584\nborne in  mint that  it is  a  beneficent  piece  of  Social\nWelfare legislation aimed at promoting and securing the well\nbeing of the employees ant the Court will not adopt a narrow\ninterpretation which  will have\t the effect of defeating the\nvery object ant purpose of the Act. [587 A-B]\n     2.2 Section  2-A of the Act was inserted merely for the\npurposes of  clarifying the position that the Act applies to\ncomposite factories. It is not the intentment of the section\nto  lay\t  down\teven   by  remotest   implication  that\t  an\nestablishment, which  is a   factory  engaged in an industry\nspecified in  Schedule I  will not liable for coverage under\nthe Act\t merely because\t it is part of a larger organisation\ncarrying on  some Of  the activties  also which may not fall\nwithin the scope of the Act. [586 G-H; 587 A]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     CIVIL APPELLATE  JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 126 of
\n1973.\n<\/p>\n
     From the  Judgment and  Order  dated  21.12.70  of\t the
\nAndhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Appeal No. 396 of 1971.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t    AND
\n     Civil Appeal No. 204 of 1973.\n<\/p>\n
     From the  Judgment and  Order dated  25.2.1972  of\t the
\nAndhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Appeal No. 392 of 1971.\n<\/p>\n
     B.R.L. Iyengar,  G.N. Rao,\t T.C. Gupta  and Attar Singh
\nfor the Appellant.\n<\/p>\n
     M.S. Gujral,  C.V. Subba  Rao,  R.N.  Poddar  and\tT.C.
\nSharma for the Respondents.\n<\/p>\n
     The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\n     BALAKRISHNA ERADI,\t J. These  two appeals\tare directed
\nagainst two  judgments of  the\tAndhra\tPradesh\t High  Court
\ndismissing two Writ Petitions filed by the appellants herein
\nnamely, the  Andhra University\tant the\t Osmania  University
\nchallenging the\t legality and validity of the notices issued
\nto the\ttwo Universities  by  the  Regional  Provident\tFund
\nCommissioner of\t Andhra Pradesh\t intimating  them  that\t the
\nDepartments  of\t Publications  and  Press  wherein  printing
\npresses were  being run by the two Universities, were liable
\nfor coverage under the Employees’ Provident
\n585<\/span>
\nFunds and  Miscellaneous Provisions  Act (hereinafter called
\nthe ‘Act  and Scheme’) and calling upon the two Universities
\nto submit   their  monthly returns  and remit the amounts of
\ncontribution as required by the provisions of the Scheme. me
\nappeals have  been filed  on the  basis of  certificates  of
\nfitness granted\t by the\t High Court under Article 133 (l)(c)
\nof the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n
     The common contention taken by the appellants herein in
\nthe two\t Writ Petitions was that the Universities are purely
\neducational institutions having a number of departments, the
\nmain object  of which is to impart education to the youth of
\nthe  country  in  various  branches  of\t studies,  that\t the
\nDepartment of  Publications and Press which is intended only
\nto cater  the needs  and requirements of the students cannot
\nbe regarded  either as\ta ‘factory’  or as an ‘industry’ and
\nthe provisions\tof the\tAct are\t not therefore, attracted in
\nrespect of the said department. It was also submitted in the
\nWrit Petitions\tthat the  two  Universities  had  their\t own
\nprovident fund\tschemes for  their employees and hence there
\nwas no\tjustification for  subjecting them to the provisions
\nof the\tAct. A\tlearned\t Single\t Judge\tof  the\t High  Court
\naccepted the  contention of  the two  Universities that\t the
\nDepartment of  Publications and\t Press could not be regarded
\nas an ‘industry’ and accordingly held that the provisions of
\nthe Act were not attracted. However, on appeals filed by the
\nRegional Provident  Fund Commissioner, Andhra Pradesh before
\na Division  Bench of  the High\tCourt, the Division Bench by
\ntwo separate  judgments\t set  aside  the  judgments  of\t the
\nlearned\t Single\t Judge\tand  held  that\t the  Department  of
\nPublications and Press of each of the two Universities is an
\nestablishment’ which  is a  factory engaged  in an  industry
\nspecified in  Schedule I, in which more than 20 persons were
\nemployed and  hence the provisions of the Act and the Scheme
\nwere applicable\t in respect  of these  Departments. In these
\nappeals, the  appellants namely,  the two Universities, have
\nchallenged  the\t correctness  of  the  aforesaid  conclusion
\nrecorded by the Division Bench of the High Court.\n<\/p>\n
     It is common ground that the Department of Publications
\nand Press of the two Universities (appellants) runs printing
\npresses, where\tthe work of printing of text books, journals
\nand magazines  for the\tvarious constituent  and  affiliated
\ncolleges as  well as  of various items of stationery such as
\nadmission forms to colleges, hostels and examinations, forms
\nof memo\t of marks,  hall tickets,  answer books, syllabi for
\nvarious colleges  and departments,  registers, receipt books
\nfor colleges  and hostels  and letter heads for Universities
\nis carried out. About 100 persons are employed in connection
\nwith the said activity in the Department of Publications and
\nPress of each University.\n<\/p>\n
586<\/span><\/p>\n
     Section 1(3)(a)  of the  Act lays\tdown that subject to
\nthe provisions contained in Section 16 (those provisions are
\nadmittedly not\tapplicable to  the cases before us), the Act
\napplies to  every establishment which is a ‘factory’ engaged
\nin any ‘industry’ specified in Schedule I and in which 20 or
\nmore persons are employed. The expression “factory” has been
\ndefined in  Section 2(g) as meaning “any premises, including
\nthe precincts  thereof, in any part of which a manufacturing
\nprocess is  being carried on or is ordinarily so carried on,
\nwhether with the aid of power or without the aid of power.”\n<\/p>\n
     Section 2(1-c)  defines “manufacture” or ‘manufacturing
\nprocess’ as  meaning  ‘any  process  for  making,  altering,
\nrepairing, ornamenting, finishing, packing, oiling, washing,
\ncleaning, breaking  up, demolishing or otherwise treating or
\nadapting any  article or  substance with  a view to its use,
\nsale, transport, delivery or disposal.”\n<\/p>\n
     It was  not disputed  before the  High Court  that\t the
\nDepartment of Publications and Press of the two Universities
\nwere ‘establishments’ and the only contention urged was that
\nthe said  Departments were  not ‘factories’ and the activity
\ncarried\t on   therein  did  not\t constitute  an\t ‘industry’.
\nHowever, before\t this Court  a new point was urged on behalf
\nof the\tappellants that\t for the purposes of determining the
\napplicability of  the Act  the\tentire\tUniversity  must  be
\ntreated as  an establishment and if the University cannot be
\nsaid to be a factory engaged in an industry, there cannot be
\nany question  of coverage  under the Act and the Scheme. For
\nsustaining this\t contention support was sought to be derived
\nfrom Section 2-A of the Act, which is in the following terms
\n:-\n<\/p>\n
\t  “2-A Establishment  to include all departments and
\n\t  branches –\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t  For the  removal of  doubts, it is hereby declared
\n\t  that where  an establishment consists of different
\n\t  departments or  has branches,\t whether situate  in
\n\t  the same  place or  in different  places, all such
\n\t  departments or  branches shall  be treated as part
\n\t  of the same establishment.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
     We are  unable to\tsee how\t this provision\t is  of\t any
\nassistance to  the appellants.\tSection 2-A  was inserted in
\nthe Act\t merely for  the purposes of clarifying the position
\nthat the  Act applies  to composite  factories.\t It  is\t not
\nintentment of the section to lay
\n587<\/span>
\ndown even  by remotest\timplication that  an  establishment,
\nwhich is  a factory  engaged in\t an  industry  specified  in
\nSchedule I  will not  be liable\t for coverage  under the Act
\nmerely because\tit is part of a larger organisation carrying
\non some\t other activities also which may not fall within the
\nscope of  the Act.  In construing the provisions of the Act,
\nwe have\t to bear  in mind  that it is a beneficient piece of
\nSocial Welfare\tlegislation aimed  at promoting and securing
\nthe well being of the employees and the Court will not adopt
\na narrow  interpretation  which\t will  have  the  effect  of
\ndefeating the very object and purpose of the Act. Once it is
\nfound that  there is  an establishment\twhich is a ‘factory’
\nengaged\t in  an\t ‘industry’  specified\tin  Schedule  I\t and
\nemploying 20 or more persons, the provisions of the Act will
\nget attracted to the case and it makes no difference to this
\nlegal position\tthat the  establishment is  run by  a larger
\norganisation which  may\t be  carrying  on  other  additional
\nactivities falling outside the Act.\n<\/p>\n
     Our attention  was drawn  to a  decision of  a  learned
\nSingle Judge  of the Calcutta High Court in Visva Bharati v.
\nRegional Provident  Fund Commissioner, West Bengal, [1983] 1
\nL.L.J. 332  wherein it\twas held  that the provisions of the
\nAct  were  inapplicable\t in  respect  of  a  “Silpa  Sadan”,
\nAgricultural Farm  and a  Hospital run\tby the Visva-Bharati
\nUniversity. The\t learned Judge\twas of the view that “if the
\nUniversity as  an establishment\t does  not  come  under\t the
\nprovisions and\tor the\tpurview of  the Act,  the  different
\nbranches  or   departments  of\t the  University  which\t the
\nUniversity empowered  and or  entitled to maintain under the
\nprovision of  the Visva Bharati Act cannot be brought within
\nthe mischief of the Act.” We have no hesitation to hold that
\nthe aforesaid  view expressed  by the  learned Judge  is not
\ncorrect or  sound and  that the\t said decision\tdoes not lay
\ndown correct law.\n<\/p>\n
     As already\t indicated, the\t true tests to be applied is
\nwhether there  is an  establishment  which  is\ta  ‘factory’
\nengaged tn any of the scheduled industries and whether 20 or
\nmore persons  are employed in the said establishment. If the
\nanswer is  in the affirmative, the provisions of the Act are
\nclearly attracted.\n<\/p>\n
     In the  cases before  us there cannot be any doubt that
\nthe establishments  namely, the\t Departments of Publications
\nand Press  are ‘factories’  as\tdefined\t in  clause  (g)  of
\nSection 2  of the  Act. Under  the said\t definition  factory
\nmeans any  premises in\tany part  of which any manufacturing
\nprocess is  being carried  on. me  printing of\ttext  books,
\njournals, registers,  forms and\t various items of stationery
\nclearly constitute ‘manufacture’ within the
\n588<\/span>
\nmeaning of the said expression as defined in clause (1-c) of
\nSection 2 of the Act. That printing is one of the industries
\nspecified in  the Schedule is not in dispute. It is also not
\ndisputed that  much more than 20 persons are employed in the
\nconcerned establishments  of the  two Universities. Thus all
\nthe requirements  of clause  (3) (a) of Section 1 of the Act
\nare fully  satisfied in these cases and hence the conclusion
\nrecorded by  the  High\tCourt  that  the  establishments  in
\nquestion are  liable for coverage under the Act is perfectly
\ncorrect and justified.\n<\/p>\n
     It follows\t that these  appeals are  totally devoid  of
\nmerits. They will accordingly stand dismissed with costs.\n<\/p>\n
S.R.\t\t\t\t\t  Appeals dismissed.\n589<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Andhra University Etc vs Regional Provident Fund … on 8 October, 1985 Equivalent citations: 1986 AIR 463, 1985 SCR Supl. (3) 582 Author: V B Eradi Bench: Eradi, V. Balakrishna (J) PETITIONER: ANDHRA UNIVERSITY ETC. Vs. RESPONDENT: REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER OF ANDHRA PRAfESH AND A DATE OF JUDGMENT08\/10\/1985 BENCH: ERADI, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-69241","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nAndhra University Etc vs Regional Provident Fund ... on 8 October, 1985 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/andhra-university-etc-vs-regional-provident-fund-on-8-october-1985\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Andhra University Etc vs Regional Provident Fund ... on 8 October, 1985 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/andhra-university-etc-vs-regional-provident-fund-on-8-october-1985\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1985-10-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-01-26T02:07:53+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"12 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/andhra-university-etc-vs-regional-provident-fund-on-8-october-1985#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/andhra-university-etc-vs-regional-provident-fund-on-8-october-1985\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Andhra University Etc vs Regional Provident Fund … on 8 October, 1985\",\"datePublished\":\"1985-10-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-26T02:07:53+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/andhra-university-etc-vs-regional-provident-fund-on-8-october-1985\"},\"wordCount\":1590,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/andhra-university-etc-vs-regional-provident-fund-on-8-october-1985#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/andhra-university-etc-vs-regional-provident-fund-on-8-october-1985\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/andhra-university-etc-vs-regional-provident-fund-on-8-october-1985\",\"name\":\"Andhra University Etc vs Regional Provident Fund ... on 8 October, 1985 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1985-10-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-01-26T02:07:53+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/andhra-university-etc-vs-regional-provident-fund-on-8-october-1985#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/andhra-university-etc-vs-regional-provident-fund-on-8-october-1985\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/andhra-university-etc-vs-regional-provident-fund-on-8-october-1985#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Andhra University Etc vs Regional Provident Fund … on 8 October, 1985\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Andhra University Etc vs Regional Provident Fund ... on 8 October, 1985 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/andhra-university-etc-vs-regional-provident-fund-on-8-october-1985","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Andhra University Etc vs Regional Provident Fund ... on 8 October, 1985 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/andhra-university-etc-vs-regional-provident-fund-on-8-october-1985","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1985-10-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-01-26T02:07:53+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"12 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/andhra-university-etc-vs-regional-provident-fund-on-8-october-1985#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/andhra-university-etc-vs-regional-provident-fund-on-8-october-1985"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Andhra University Etc vs Regional Provident Fund … on 8 October, 1985","datePublished":"1985-10-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-26T02:07:53+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/andhra-university-etc-vs-regional-provident-fund-on-8-october-1985"},"wordCount":1590,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/andhra-university-etc-vs-regional-provident-fund-on-8-october-1985#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/andhra-university-etc-vs-regional-provident-fund-on-8-october-1985","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/andhra-university-etc-vs-regional-provident-fund-on-8-october-1985","name":"Andhra University Etc vs Regional Provident Fund ... on 8 October, 1985 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1985-10-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-01-26T02:07:53+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/andhra-university-etc-vs-regional-provident-fund-on-8-october-1985#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/andhra-university-etc-vs-regional-provident-fund-on-8-october-1985"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/andhra-university-etc-vs-regional-provident-fund-on-8-october-1985#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Andhra University Etc vs Regional Provident Fund … on 8 October, 1985"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/69241","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=69241"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/69241\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=69241"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=69241"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=69241"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}