Judgment :- K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J. Petitioners are re-employed Ex-service men. They are re-employed in certain industrial establishments. They have approached this Court seeking a direction to exempt them from the provisions of the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995 framed by the Central Government in terms of S.6-A of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. It is submitted by the petitioners that they are entitled to get exemption in terms of Clause 39 of the Scheme. They contend that they are already covered by a pension scheme because of their military service which according to them, is more beneficial than the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995. They being a group of persons employed in certain industrial establishments forms part of such establishment. Therefore, Government shall exempt them in terms of S.39 of the Scheme. They seek a declaration that as per Clause 39 of the Scheme part of the establishment consisting of a group of employees in one organisation, who are in receipt of benefits on par with or more favourable than the benefits envisaged in terms of the said scheme shall be exempted and the first respondent be directed to exempt them from the said scheme. Thus, the thrust is based on the power conferred on the Government in terms of Clause 39 of the Scheme. Emphasise is to the first sentence of the said clause which reads as follows: "The Central Government may grant exemption to any establishment or class of establishments from the operation of this scheme if the employees of the establishments are either members of any other pension scheme or propose to be members of a pension scheme wherein the pensionary benefits are at par or more favourable than the benefits provided under this Scheme". Based on this provision, the contention of the petitioners cannot be accepted for more than one reason. 2. At first, exemption that can be granted by appropriate Government as per the said statutory provision is 'to any establishment or class of establishment' and not to any employee or group of employees as contended by the petitioners. When an establishment or a class of establishment is exempted from the provision of the scheme, the employees employed in that establishment or class of establishment will fall out of the fold of the scheme and will not be entitled to pension. When an establishment or a class of establishment is exempted from the provision of the scheme, the employees employed in that establishment or class of establishment will fall out of the fold of the scheme and will not be entitled to pension. In other words, a few employees of an establishment or a class of establishment alone cannot be exempted. Exemption can only be to the establishment. Petitioners' claim is to the effect that the re-employed Ex-service men in the service of certain industrial establishments shall be exempted from the Pension Scheme, 1995. The power conferred on Government under Clause 39 is not to exempt any employee or a group of employees. So taking shelter under Clause 39, petitioners cannot contend that they being a group of re-employed Ex-service men shall be exempted from the Scheme. 3. It is further contended that the re-employed Ex-service men in a particular establishment forms part of the establishment. A part of the establishment is also an establishment in so far as S.39 is concerned. Therefore, in so far as the provisions do not take in part of an establishment also as establishment, it is illegal. S.2A of the Act provides that 'where an establishment consists of different departments or branches whether situated in the same place or different places, such department or branch shall be treated as part of the establishment'. Petitioners do not have a case before me that all the Ex-service men in an industrial establishment are employed in a particular department or that in a particular department of the establishment all the employees are re-employed Ex-service men. Even if part of the establishment, as clarified in S.2A of the Act is taken as an establishment and even if such part is exempted the same vice that has been pointed out earlier will again arise because all the employees including the non re-employed Ex-service men will also fall out of the scheme and they will not be entitled to the pension. Merely because a microscopic minority of the employees in a part of the establishment are re-employed Ex-servicemen eligible for higher pensionary benefits under any other scheme, by exempting the establishment from the purview of the scheme the majority of the employees cannot be denied the benefits derived out of the Scheme. Therefore, the said contention also has no leg to stand. 4. Therefore, the said contention also has no leg to stand. 4. The contention that the re-employed Ex-service men in a particular industrial establishment forms part of the establishment also does not merit any consideration because establishment and employees are yet different. Establishment does not include employees alone. It includes the entire capital structure including land, machinery, management and employment and not a part of employees alone. Employees cannot be synonymous to establishment or part of establishment. Employees are one among the several components of the establishment. A component cannot be termed as a part of the whole structure. Component will be one among the several fabrics which give form to the structure. So the fabric cannot be equated to a matter of which it forms component. Therefore, a group of re-employed Ex-servicemen, in a particular industrial establishment cannot be termed as a part of that establishment to get exemption in terms of Clause 39 of the Scheme. Thus, there is no legal basis for the claim urged in this Original Petition. The Original Petition fails. It is accordingly dismissed.