JUDGMENT :- (ELIPE DHARMA RAO, J.) 1. The issue involved in this writ appeal is 'whether the second respondent viz. Central Leather Research Institute is an 'establishment' within the meaning of Tamil Nadu Labour Welfare Fund Act, so as to say that they are liable to pay the contribution to the Labour Welfare Fund'. 2. The respondents 1 and 2 herein have filed the Writ Petition No.13340 of 1988 before this Court, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents therein (the appellant and the third respondent herein) from applying the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Labour Welfare Fund Act (Act 36 of 1972) to the second respondent/institution. The learned single Judge, by the order dated 3.12.1999, observing that the petitioners, a Central Government institution is not covered by the Tamil Nadu Act 37 of 1982 with effect from 15th September, 1982, are not liable to pay the contribution to the Welfare Fund on and after that date, has allowed the writ petition, to that extent. Aggrieved, the appellant has preferred this appeal. A Division Bench of this Court, by the order dated 6.7.2009, has allowed the appeal, by holding as follows: "In the present case, it is not required to determine whether CSIR falls within the meaning of "establishment" because, claim is made against the respondent Leather Research Institute, Adyar. It s also not necessary to notice whether the respondent Leather Research Institute, Adyar, is an "establishment" falls within the meaning of Section 2(d)(v) of the Act, as, admittedly, it is a factory as defined in clause (m) of Section 2 of the Factories Act, 1948, as was intimated to it by the Welfare Board and not disputed by the respondent. As the factory defined under clause (m) of the Factories Act and a place which is deemed to be a factory under sub section (2) of Section 85 of the said Act comes within the definition of establishment under Section 2(d)(i) of the Act, 1972, we are of the view that the respondent Leather Research Institute cannot derive any advantage of the amendment made with effect 15.9.1982 in Section 2(d)(v) of the Act, vide Act 37 of 1982" 3. Against this judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, Civil Appeal No.2179 of 2011 was preferred by the writ petitioners before the Honourable Apex Court. Against this judgment of the Division Bench of this Court, Civil Appeal No.2179 of 2011 was preferred by the writ petitioners before the Honourable Apex Court. The Honourable Apex Court, by the order dated 22.2.2011 has remanded the matter to this Court, with the following observations: "Leave granted. It appears to be conceded position that no notice had been served on the petitioners herein prior to the disposal of the writ appeal by the High Court by the impugned judgment. We have therefore no option but to allow this appeal, set aside the order of the Division Bench of the High Court dated 6.7.2009 and remit the case to the Division Bench for a hearing afresh. The parties shall appear before the High Court on the 6.4.2011. The appeal is allowed in the above terms." 4. Accordingly, this matter has been taken up by us. 5. For constitution of a fund for promoting the welfare of labour and for certain other matters connected therewith in the State of Tamil Nadu, the Tamil Nadu Labour Welfare Fund Act, 1972 has been enacted. Under this Act, certain 'establishments', defined in the said Act, are made liable to make contributions towards this fund. The term 'establishment' has been defined under Section 2(d) of the said Act. Sub-clauses (i) and (v) of Section 2(d), being relevant to the case on hand, are extracted hereunder: "establishment" means - (i) a factory as defined in clause (m) of section 2 of the Factories Act, 1948 (Central Act LXIII of 1948) or any place which is deemed to be a factory under sub-section (2) of section 85 of that Act; (ii) ...... (iii) .... (iv) .... (iii) .... (iv) .... (v) an establishment, including a society registered or deemed to be registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975 (Tamil Nadu Act 27 of 1975) and a charitable or other trust whether registered under any law applicable to such charitable or other trust or not, which carries on any business or trade or any work in connection therewith or ancillary thereto and which employs, or on any working day during the preceding twelve months employed, five or more persons but does not include an establishment (not being a factory) of the Central or any State Government; Explanation: For the purposes of this Act, where an establishment consists of different departments or has branches whether situate in the same place or in different places, all such departments or branches shall be treated as parts of the same establishment." 6. The judgment of the earlier Division Bench has proceeded on the basis that the second petitioner, being a 'factory' within the meaning of Section 2(m) of the Factories Act and 'deemed to be a factory under sub section (2) of Section 85' of the Factories Act, is liable to pay the Welfare Fund. 7. But, in Para No.5 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, it has been specifically contended by the writ petitioners/the respondents 1 and 2 herein that they are exempted from the purview of Factories Act by G.O.Ms.No.45, dated 7.1.1954. In para No.2 of the counter affidavit filed before the learned single Judge, it has been contended by the respondents therein (the appellants herein) that the exemption in G.O.Ms.No.45, dated 7.1.1954 is not an exemption from the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Labour Welfare Fund Act which was enacted in the year 1972. 8. No doubt, the exemption granted in G.O.Ms.No.45, dated 7.1.1954 from the purview of Factories Act to the writ petitioners/respondents 1 and 2 herein, can never be an exemption from the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Labour Welfare Fund Act, which was enacted in the year 1972. But, the fact remains that when the writ petitioners have been exempted from the purview of Factories Act, they cannot be called as a 'factory', as defined in clause (m) of Section 2 of the Factories Act, or 'deemed to be a factory' under sub-section (2) of Section 85 of the Factories Act. But, the fact remains that when the writ petitioners have been exempted from the purview of Factories Act, they cannot be called as a 'factory', as defined in clause (m) of Section 2 of the Factories Act, or 'deemed to be a factory' under sub-section (2) of Section 85 of the Factories Act. Therefore, the writ petitioners cannot be brought into the fold of 'establishment' as per Section 2(d)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Labour Welfare Fund Act, 1972. 9. The contention of the second respondent herein (second petitioner in the writ petition) is that it is a 'Society' registered under the Societies Registration Act (Central Act XXI of 1860) and is functioning under the aegis of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, Government of India and is having number of laboratories/institutes all over the country devoted to Research and Developmental activities in scientific and industrial fields and the first respondent herein (first petitioner in the writ petition) is wholly financed by the Central Government; that it is the only institute of its kind in South East Asia an several foreign students are also trained in this institute; that it is purely service oriented unit working under the first writ petitioner, which is an apex body functioning under the Government of India, Department of Scientific and Industrial Research. 10. The contention of the appellant/second respondent Board is that the respondents/writ petitioners are not the entities of the Central Government and hence they are liable to contribute towards the fund. 11. It is the argument of the writ petitioners that under Section 2(d) of the Tamil Nadu Labour Welfare Fund Act, 1972, 'establishment' has been defined under sub-section 2 (d)(v) as 'including a Society registered or deemed to be registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act'. According to them, since the first writ petitioner is a 'Society' registered under the Central Act, they will not come within the purview of the Tamil Nadu Labour Welfare Fund Act, 1972, which has been disputed by the appellant. 12. Therefore, now, we have to see as to whether a 'Society' registered under the Societies Registration Act (Central Act) can be treated as a 'Society' registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act. 13. The earlier enactment in the field is the Societies Registration Act of 1860 passed by the Government of India. 12. Therefore, now, we have to see as to whether a 'Society' registered under the Societies Registration Act (Central Act) can be treated as a 'Society' registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act. 13. The earlier enactment in the field is the Societies Registration Act of 1860 passed by the Government of India. Many State Governments have passed various amending Acts to the Central Act. But, certain States like Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu etc. have passed separate State Acts, repealing the Central Act. 14. In the statement of Objects and Reasons, published in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette Extraordinary No.422, dated 14.12.1972, it is stated that the Societies Registration Act, (Central Act 21 of 1860) was enacted at a time when the law relating to society was in its infancy in India and that the actual working of the Act has brought to light many defects, such as the absence of a provision for a change of name of a society, the maintenance of Register of Members an Committee Members, the keeping of a registered office, the alteration of bye-laws, the holding of Annual General Meetings and the winding up of the society under the orders of the Registrar. The preamble of this Act states that it is an Act to provide for the registration of literary, scientific, religious, charitable and other Societies in the State of Tamil Nadu. The Act has come into force on 22.4.1978. 15. Section 53 of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act deals with 'Application of Act to existing registered societies', which reads as follows: "Every society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (Central Act XXI of 1860), or under any law corresponding to this Act in force in the transferred territory immediately before the date of the commencement of this Act including the Travancore-Cochin Literary, Scientific and Charitable Societies Registration Act, 1955 (Travancore-Cochin Act XII of 1955), shall be deemed to be registered under this Act, and the bye-laws of such society, shall, in so far as they are not inconsistent with any provision of this Act, continue in force until altered or rescinded." 16. By virtue of this Section 53 of the State Act, every Society registered under the Central Act, before the commencement of the State Act shall be deemed to be registered under the State Act. By virtue of this Section 53 of the State Act, every Society registered under the Central Act, before the commencement of the State Act shall be deemed to be registered under the State Act. Even as per the statement of the writ petitioners/respondents 1 and 2 herein, they have registered as a 'Society' under the Central Act, by the time the State Act has come into existence. Hence, it goes without saying that by operation of this provision of the State Act, the writ petitioner/second respondent, being a 'Society' registered under the Central Act, before the commencement of the State Act, will automatically fall into the fold of 'Society' under the State Act. Therefore, the stand taken by the writ petitioner/second respondent that since it has been registered only under the Societies Registration Act (Central Act XXI of 1860), it cannot be termed as a 'society' registered within the meaning of the State Act, cannot be accepted. 17. Therefore, it is to be held that the second respondent is a 'Society' deemed to have been registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act. But, by virtue of the amended Act 37 of 1982, the second respondent/second writ petitioner being 'an establishment (not being a factory) of the Central Government', cannot be an 'establishment' for the purposes of the Tamil Nadu Labour Welfare Fund Act, 1972, as per the exemption granted for such establishments under Section 2(d)(v) of the said Act, as extracted above. In this view of the matter, the order of the learned single Judge sustains and the challenge made to the same by the appellant must fail. 18. In view of the above discussions, pertaining to the exemption granted by the Government to the second respondent/second writ petitioner under G.O.Ms.No.45, dated 7.1.1954 and in view of the express exemption provided for such establishments under Section 2(d)(v) of the Tamil Nadu Welfare Fund Act, the other argument advanced on the part of the appellant that similar institutions like Reserve Bank of India, LIC etc. have been making contributions under the Tamil Nadu Labour Welfare Acts, as amended, by producing the challans made by the said institutions, has no bearing, in the sense, the plea of said Insurance Companies has been dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court by the common judgment dated 20.1.2005 in W.A.Nos.750 to 753 of 1998 and the same seems to have attained finality. For all the above reasons, this Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected C.M.P.No.4351 of 2000 is also dismissed.