ANAND PRAKASH, J.M.: short controversy in these appeals is whether assessee is entitled to relief under s. 80I of IT Act, 1961 in respect of asst. yrs. 1982-83 and 1983-84. facts are in very narrow compass and may be noted. assessee is individual. He purchases yarn from market and gives same to weavers to weave cloth as per his design. cloth is then dyed and calendared. assessee gets this work done on job basis from others. He has neither factory nor any machinery of his own. assessee's claim for deduction under s. 80I was rejected by ITO by observing, inter alia, as follows: "The assessee has claimed deduction under s. 80I of IT Act, 1961 amounting to Rs. 12, 356. assessee has got no factory building nor has installed any plant or machinery whatsoever. He purchases yarn from market and gest it weaved in factories on job work basis. He does not employ any labour or uses any power for carrying out production. He is neither manufacturer nor makes any process." assessee carried matter in appeal to AAC, who confirmed order of ITO by making, inter alia, following observations: "Hence from working of this section, it is very clear that appellant firm is neither employs any workers for manufacturing of cloth which appellant's firm himself is admitting that he has done job work from weavers as well as dyed from different dyers on Job work basis. In case, is as per wording of section, which states undertaking employee 10 or more workers in manufacturing process carried on with aid of power or employees 20 or more workers in manufacturing process carried out without aid of power even he will have to comply with rules of factory Act for various benefits which generally workers are entitled or even for purpose of State Employees Insurance etc. Since present firm is not employing any workers for manufacturing of cloth, claim under s. 80I is not justified at all. Hence going through detailed facts of case, I hold that appellant's claim is not under preview of Section 80I. In this way, ITO has rightly disallowed claim of appellant under ss. 80I, in both cases." assessee is in appeal against aforesaid concurrent findings of authorities below and it is contention of assessee that he constitutes Industrial Undertaking in so far as he has undertaken work of getting cloth manufactured, and such manufactured cloth is sold by him. In support of above plea, he relies on following decisions: Orient Longman Ltd. vs. CIT (1981) 130 ITR 477 (Del) and CWT vs. Radhey Mohan Narain (1982) 29 CTR (All) 299: (1982) 135 ITR 372 (All). It is urged that in case of Radhey Mohan Narain, (supra) facts were identical to those in present case. There, firm was engaged in purchasing plain white cloth and was getting it converted into printed bed-spreads, scarves and garments etc. From others on job basis on these facts claim was made by assessee that firm was running industrial undertaking in terms of cl (xxxii) of sub-s. (1) of s. 5 of WT Act, 1957 and above plea was sustained by Hon'ble Allahabad High Court. In case of Orient Longman Ltd. (supra) also assessee was getting books manufactured by getting manuscript, designing, finishing, etc., done by others on job basis, and yet it was held by their Lordships of Hon'ble Delhi High Court that entire work undertaken by assessee company was of industrial nature and that assessee company was industrial company entitled to concessional rate of tax in terms of s. 2(6)(c) of Finance Act, 1970. On analogy of aforesaid two cases, it was urged by assessee in present case that assessee was also industrial undertaking inasmuch as from stage of yarn till stage of finished product in form of dyed and calendared cloth, cloth was being got manufactured by assessee, and so assessee was manufacturer, even though he was getting that work done by others and not in his own manufactory, through labour force employed by himself, with help of his own machinery. In view of this according to assessee, relief under s. 80I ought to be given to assessee as he owned industrial undertaking which manufactured articles in cloth. Turning to requirement, contained in cl. (Iv) of sub-s. (2) of s. 80-I regarding employment of 10 or more workers in manufacturing process, if assessee was using power assessee pleaded that even this condition was met in his case, because assessee was getting manufacturing done by more than 10 persons, and so it had to be said that h e was employing 10 persons in manufacturing process, which was being done with aid of power. In support of above plea, assessee relied upon decision of Tribunal, Delhi Bench 'D' reported in (1980) 3 TAXMAN 191, (Del) copy of which has been placed on record. It has been held in that case in context of s. 80 J that "for purposes of Sec. 80 J (4), word "employee" does not indicate that there should be relationship of master and servant. assessee may employ workers in its own factory or may resort to job work which goes to indicate that assessee employs necessary number of workers in manufacturing activities,................." Reference is also made of Special Bench decision of Tribunal in case of Kapri International (P) Ltd. vs. ITO (1985) 4 SOT 458 (Del) (5B) wherein according to assessee, similar views as expressed by Delhi Bench 'D' above have been expressed. On basis of aforesaid submissions, it is pleaded by assessee's ld. counsel that we should reverse order of ld. AAC and hold that assessee was entitled to relief under s. 80 I of IT Act, 1961. On behalf of Revenue, aforesaid submissions were stoutly opposed and it was pleaded that reading various clauses of s. 80 I together, it could not be said that employment of 10 or more persons by assessee himself i n his own factory, using his own machines etc., was not perquisite of relief under s. 80 I. In this connection, ld. Departmental Representative drew our attention in particular to provisions of sub cl. (Ii) and (iv) of sub-s. (2) of s. 80 I and provisions of second Provisio thereto read with Explanation. III to sub-s. (2). It is contention of ld. Departmental Representative that whatever might have been position under. s 80 J, provisions of s. 80 I applied only if industrial undertaking in question undertook manufacturing with help of its own machines in its own factory and if it employed 10 or more persons in manufacturing process if machinery was being run with aid of power. Referring to cases relied upon by assessee namely Orient Longman Ltd. vs. CIT (1981) 130 ITR 477 (Del) and CWT vs. Radhey Mohan Narain (1982) 20 CTR (All) 299: (1982) 135 ITR 372 (All) ld. Departmental representative pointed out that said two decisions could not throw any light on scope and sweep of s. 80I, for their Lordships in those case were not required to examine any provision, similar to that contained in sub-cls. (ii) and (iv) of sub s. (2) of s. 80 I r/w second proviso and Explanation III thereto Radhey Mohan Narain (1982) 29 CTR (All) 299: (1982) 135 ITR 372 (All) concerned itself with definition of "Industrial undertaking' as given in Explanation to cl. (xxxi) of sub-s. (1) of s. 5 of WT Act, 1957, whereas Orient Longman Ltd. (1981) 130 ITR 477 (Del) concerned itself with definition of Industrial company' as given in s. 2 (6)(c) of Finance Act. 1970. In none of aforesaid provisions there was any clause similar to sub-cls (ii) and (iv) of sub-s. (2) of s. 80 I read with second proviso and Explanation III thereto. We have given careful consideration to facts of case and rival submissions. Admittedly, assessee has no manufactory wherein he might be carrying on any manufacturing process with aid of power and wherein he might be engaging 10 or more workers. crucial question, therefore, is whether above facts would dis-entitle assessee from relief under s. 80 I of IT Act, 1961. For resolving this controversy. Let us look at relevant provisions, as they apply to facts of present case. sub-s. (2) of s. 80 I, so far as it is relevant for our purpose, reads as below: " 80 I (1) xxx xxx xxx (2) This section applies to any industrial undertaking which fulfils all following conditions, namely: (i) it is not formed by splitting up, or reconstruction, of business already in existence: (ii) it is not formed by transfer to new business of machinery or plant previously used for any purpose: previously used for any purpose: (iii) it manufactures or produced any article or thing not being any article or thing specified in list in Eleventh Schedule, or operates one or more cold storage plant or plants, in any part of India, and begins to manufacture or produce articles, or things or to operate such plant or plants, at any time within period of nine years next following 31st March, 1981, or such further period as Central Government may by notification in Official Gazette, specify with reference to any particular industrial undertaking: (iv) in case where industrial undertaking manufactures or produces articles or thing undertaking employees ten or more workers in manufacturing process carried on with aid of power or employees twenty or more workers in manufacturing process carried on without aid of power: provided xxx xxx xxx provided further that condition in cl (iii) shall in relation to small scale industrial undertaking apply as if words "not being any article or thing specified in list in Eleventh Schedule" had been omitted. Expln.1: xxx Expln.2: xxx Expln.3: For purposes of this sub-section "Small scale industrial undertaking" shall have same meaning as in cl. (b) of Explanation below sub-s. 8 of s. 80HHA." Sub-cl. (ii) refers to transfer of machinery or plant. Sub-cl (iii) refers to manufacturing or producing article or thing and sub-cl. (Iv) stipulates that undertaking should employ 10 or more workers in manufacturing process carried on with aid of power. Second proviso clarifies that in relation to small scale industrial undertaking requirement of sub-cl. (Iii) of cl. (2) of not manufacturing any article or thing specified in list in Eleventh Schedule would not apply. Small industrial undertaking has been defined in by Explanation III in same sense in which said term has been defined in cl (b) Explanation below sub-s (8) of s. 80HHA. said cl. (b) reads, Inter alia as below: "For purposes of this section (a) xxx (b) industrial undertaking shall be deemed to be small scale industrial undertaking if aggregate value of machinery and plant..........installed, as on last day of previous year, for purposes of business undertaking does not exceed, (1) xxx (2) in case where previous year ends after 31st day of July, 1980 but before 18th March, 1985, twenty lakh rupees, and for this purpose, value of any machinery or plant shall be, (i) in case of any machinery or plant owned by assessee, actual cost thereof to assessee, and (ii) in case of any machinery or plant hired by assessee, actual cost thereof as in case of owner of such machinery or plant...." It is thus clear that in order to be small scale industrial undertaking, person has to own plant and machinery or has to hire plant and machinery value of which should be Rs. 20 lacs or less if this be position, then person would be said to be having small scale industrial undertaking and in case of such person it is not necessary that manufacturing or production of article or thing mentioned in Eleventh Schedule to IT Act, 1961 cannot be undertaken. Such person can manufacture anything, including articles mentioned in Schedule Eleven and get benefit of s. 80I. It is only those industrial undertaking which are not small scale industrial undertaking in whose case there is bar regarding manufacturing of goods mentioned in eleventh Schedule. overall context of s. 80I, therefore is clearly suggestive of fact that person, who wants to claim relief under s. 80I. Should be having industrial undertaking, which has its own manufactory. Where in there are machines installed, either owned by assessee himself or taken on hire by him and manufacturing process should be undertaking in premises of assessee's own industrial undertaking and in process of such manufacturing there should be employment of 10 or more persons, if factory is being run with aid of power. If person does not own factory, it is obvious he would not be in position to claim under s. 80I. We are reinforced in this interpretation on account of clarifications given in second proviso to sub-s. (2) of s. 80I read with Explanation III thereof. It would be difficult to accept interpretation that s. 80I would apply more stringently in case of small industrial undertakings, who are required to have their own machines having value of not exceeding Rs. 20 lacs than to non-small scale industrial undertaking in whose case, according to assessee's interpretation, there would be no need for having their own or hired plant and machinery and factory. If small scale industrial undertaking has to have plant and machinery either its own or on hire and industrial manufactory, non small scale industrial undertaking will also need one. It is interesting to note that provisions similar to those contained in First proviso to sub-s. (2) of s. 80I and Explanation III to said sub-section were not obtaining in s. 80J of IT Act, 1961. provisions of s. 80I are, therefore, to this extent, different from provisions of 80J and whatever might have been doubts in context to s. 80J with regard to employment of 10 or more workers in manufacturing process in assessee's own manufactory where manufacturing should be done with assistance of assessee's own plant and machinery, it is not possible to entertain any such doubt in context of s. 80I. Even in context of s. 80J we find that opinion of ld. Editor of law of IT by A. Sampath Iyengar 1983 Edition with regard to condition No. (Iv) of s. 80J which is more or less akin to condition No. (Iv) of s. 80I(2), was to following effect (at P. 2755): "Number of employees Where industrial undertaking manufactures n d produces articles, it should employ ten or more workers where manufacturing process is carried on without aid of power " ld. author Chaturvedi and Pithisaria mentioned eligibility conditions for relief under s. 80J at P. 1225 of their book IT Law, 2nd Ed., and that is how they mentioned condition No. (iv): 'The manufactory, if it is one, employs (a) 10 or more workers in manufacturing process carried on with aid of power, or (b) 20 or more workers in manufacturing process carried on without aid of power." existence of manufactory would be necessary only in case of manufacturing and production of article, and not with regard to cold storage and that is why parenthetical clause "if it is one" has been used in above commentary by ld. Authors. Their Lordships of Hon'ble Bombay High Court considered rationable of condition in sub-s. (Iv) of s. 80J of IT Act, 1961 in case of CIT vs. Sawyer's Asia Ltd. (1979) 11 CTR (Bom) 285: (1980) 122 ITR 259 at 269 (Bom), they expressed themselves as below: "The condition appears to us to be imposed to enable assessee who establish new undertakings to get relief provided they satisfy certain, requirements and specific requirement is aimed at making small dent in huge army of unemployed persons which exists in our country. requirement then is that assessee which has established new industrial undertaking must employ 10 persons or more in manufacturing process." According to above rationale, employment of workers must be b y assessee himself. If he gives to work to existing contractors, who are already having their independent business of doing such job works rationale of cl. (iv) of s. 80J(4) would not be fulfilled, for employees employed by said contractor will not be employed by assessee. They have been employed by contractor not because of assessee but dehors him. In as much as cl.(iv) of sub-s. (2) of s. 80I is on similar lines rationale of it would be same and it cannot be said that said rationale is fulfilled if we adopt reasoning of assessee's ld. counsel. It is possible to conceive that employment of 10 persons or more may not on be wages basis in assessee's manufactory and that persons may be employed on contract basis to do specified jobs and to be paid accordingly. In such case there may not be any employer-employee relationship between assessee and said workers. But such employment must be in assessee's manufactory in course of manufacturing process carried on with assistance of plant and machinery either owned by assessee or hired by assessee. If above would not be position, relief under s. 80I would not be available to assessee, as workers have not been employed by his undertaking; their employment by contractor is unrelated to assessee's industrial undertaking in course of contractor's own business. contention of assessee that he is owning industrial undertaking in so far as he manufactures cloth; may be correct, and we hold that it is correct, but requirement of s. 80I is not merely that person should be owning industrial undertaking and getting manufacturing done, but it further stipulates that in course of such manufacturing process it should employ 10 or more persons, if manufacturing is done with aid of power, and that there should be plant and machinery of assessee either owned by him or hired by him with help of which manufacturing process is being done. above was not requirement either in s. 2(6)(c) of Finance Act, 1970 or of Explanation to cl. (xxxi) of sub-s. (1) of s. 5 of WT Act, 1957. Those case laws will therefore, not help assessee. Special Bench of Tribunal has not expressed any opinion either way. They left matter entirely open and therefore, we derive no assistance from same. So far as decision of Delhi Bench 'D' of Tribunal is concerned, it has proceeded on footing that assessee did employ 10 or more persons in its manufacturing process for purpose of s. 80J. We are unable to record such finding in present case in context of s. 80I. employment of workers must be by industrial undertaking of assessee and not by any body else. When work is got done by assessee in somebody else's factory, labour employed by said manufacturer in his factory is his labour that cannot be said to be labour employed by assessee, whatever be sense in which we may use term 'employ'. Even if Master-servant relationship is not necessary and even if payment of wages be not essence of employment, there should be direct relationship in assessee's industrial undertaking and employment of labourers. Their employment must be because of industrial undertaking and not irrespective of it. In present case, assessee did not employ any worker in his manufacturing process. He gave manufacturing work to existing industrialist for undertaking specific job which he carried out in his own manufactory. said industrialist cannot be regarded as worker, who has been employed by assessee in process of manufacturing, which is being done by him with aid of power. For reasons given above, we hold that finding of authorities below in present case was correct and we, accordingly, confirm their order and dismiss assessee's appeals. No other pleas were agitated before us. *** MAHENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL v. INCOME TAX OFFICER