Judgment :- 1. The revision petitioner is a contractor. He undertook to do two specified items of construction-work for Rs. 68 lakhs and Rs. 12 lakhs for the Idikki Hydro Electric Project. The work commenced in March 1972 and is still continuing. The revision petitioner employs daily more than twenty manual labourers for the work. Besides he has also an office, clerks and field staff in connection with the work. For not submitting to the Assistant Labour Officer, pw. 2, a list of Festival Holidays intended for the workers for the year 1973 as required by R.4 of the Kerala Industrial Establishments (National and Festival Holidays) Rules, 1959, the District Magistrate, Ernakulam, convicted him under R.12 of those Rules and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs. 20/-and in default to undergo simple imprisonment for three days. 2. Now these arc Rules framed under the Kerala Industrial Establishments (National and Festival Holidays) Act, 47 of 1958, for short, the Kerala Act. That Act was passed to grant national and festival holidays to employees in industrial establishments. Under the Act every employee is entitled to avail of seven national holidays and such number of festival holidays as may be fixed on an understanding between the employers and employees as paid holidays. As regards establishments newly started R.4 provides that the list of festival holidays should be submitted within 30 days. The maximum penalty for violation of this provision is fixed in R.12 as Rs. 50/- fine. 3. These provisions are applicable only to industrial establishments. In S.2 (e) of the Kerala Act'industrial establishment' is defined. It reads: "(e) "industrial establishment" means, (i) any establishment, industrial, commercial or otherwise, wherein twenty or more persons are employed, or were employed ob any day of the preceding twelve months, and includes (a) a factory as defined in the Factories Act, 1948 (Central Act 63 of 1948); and (b) a plantation; (ii) any other establishment which the Government may, by notification in the Gazette, declare to be an industrial establishment for the purposes of this Act;" The construction-work that the revision petitioner does on contract in the Idikki project which has not so far been completed is only a piece-work. pw. 2 conceded in his deposition that it would not be covered by the expression "industrial" or "commercial". To the same effect was the evidence or" Dw.1, an Executive Engineer. pw. 2 conceded in his deposition that it would not be covered by the expression "industrial" or "commercial". To the same effect was the evidence or" Dw.1, an Executive Engineer. The District Magistrate was of the opinion that the construction-work was an industry and that even if it was not an industry it would come under the expression "or otherwise" occurring in S.2 (e) of the Kerala Act. 4. The District Magistrate has in his judgment relied upon the decision of the Patna High Court in Management of Radio Foundation Engineering Ltd. and another v. State of Bihar and others AIR. 1970 Patna 295 where it was held that a company which did contract-work under the Bihar Government in connection with a Dam Project was an 'industry' and observed that the principles laid down there would apply here as well. That decision was under a different Act, the Industrial Disputes Act, Central Act 14 of 1947, for short, the Central Act, the provisions of which are entirely different. There the dispute was between the management and labourers of the company about claim for bonus and allied matters and a Reference was started before the Industrial Tribunal, Bihar, which passed an order directing the management to deposit two months' wages of each workman if they succeeded in respect of their claim for bonus. The correctness of that order was challenged in three writ applications and they were all dismissed by the High Court. It was in disposing of those applications that the court held that the company's establishment was an "industry" as contemplated by the Central Act. But then in that Act the word "industry" is defined in S.20) as: "any business, trade, undertaking, manufacture or calling of employers and includes any calling, service, employment, handicraft or industrial occupation or avocation of workmen" The nature of the work carried on by the Company in Management of Radio Foundation Engineering Ltd. and another v. State of Bihar and others AIR. 1970 Patna 295 plainly came within that definition. Unlike the Central Act there is no definition of the word "industry" in the Kerala Act. On the other hand unlike the Central Act there is definition of the expression "industrial establishment" in the Kerala Act. The two definitions, "industry" in the Central Act and "industrial establishment" in the Kerala Act, are entirely different in their nature and scope. Unlike the Central Act there is no definition of the word "industry" in the Kerala Act. On the other hand unlike the Central Act there is definition of the expression "industrial establishment" in the Kerala Act. The two definitions, "industry" in the Central Act and "industrial establishment" in the Kerala Act, are entirely different in their nature and scope. The objects of the two enactments are also different. In such circumstances I do not think it right to interpret the definition of 'industrial establishment' in the Kerala Act by reference to the definition of 'industry' occurring in the Central Act. Consequently the Patna decision under the Central Act cannot be of any assistance. 5. There is difficulty in accepting the learned District Magistrate's view that the establishment of the revision petitioner would come under the expression "or otherwise" occurring in S.2(e) of the Kerala Act. If that view is accepted the Kerala Act would apply to all establishments other than industrial and commercial establishments also if they employ twenty persons or more. If that was the intention of the framers of the Act they need only have stated "all establishments whether industrial or not." Instead of that when they used the expression "any establishment, industrial, commercial or otherwise" certain restrictions were intended. After mentioning "any establishment" when qualifications were prescribed as "industrial, commercial or otherwise" those qualifications were intended to limit or restrict the expression "any establishment". "Establishment" is the genus of which "industrial establishment" and "commercial establishment" are species. The general words "or otherwise" although they have an enlarging effect, if instead of following a single species they follow two or more species they have to be read as confined to the same kind of things specified in the species. In the present case when the general words "or otherwise" followed the two species "industrial, commercial", which in my judgment, were not selected arbitrarily or without intentional significance, the generality of the words "or otherwise" is limited and those words have to be read as comprehending only things of the same kind as that designated by the two preceding species. In other words the rule of ejusdem generis applies. That rule was applied in interpreting the same general words "or otherwise "occurring in S.9 (1) of the Land Drainage Act, 1930, in Eton Rural District Council v. River Thames Conservators, "(1950) 1-Ch. In other words the rule of ejusdem generis applies. That rule was applied in interpreting the same general words "or otherwise "occurring in S.9 (1) of the Land Drainage Act, 1930, in Eton Rural District Council v. River Thames Conservators, "(1950) 1-Ch. 540, and in S.11 (1) of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1889, in Att. Gen. v. Seccombe (1911) 2-K. B. 688. No doubt the modern tendency of the law is to attenuate the application of the rule of ejusdem generis but as in the present ease not to apply that rule would be to give an unlimited statutory expansion to the words "or otherwise" which was not intended by the framers of the Act. I accept the argument of Mr. M. P. Abraham, counsel for the revision petitioner, that the words "or otherwise" occurring in S.2 (e) of the Kerala Act have to be read ejusdem generis with the particular words "industrial, commercial" which precede them and that the establishment of the revision petitioner at Idikki is neither industrial nor commercial nor anything of that kind as it is not a manufacturing work or a trade, or work or business of a similar nature, and so is not an industrial establishment as contemplated by S.2 (e) of the Kerala Act. I allow this revision petition and quash the conviction and sentence of the revision petitioner. Fine, if paid, shall be refunded to him. Allowed.