The Secretary of Labor sued to enjoin Southern Farms, Inc., from violating the provisions of the Fair Labor Stand*131ards Act as amended.1 Southern Farms, Inc., is engaged in purchasing, candling and selling eggs at Itta Bena, Mississippi. It regularly ships eggs in interstate commerce, but contends that the wage benefits of the Act do not apply to its employees because they are engaged in handling agricultural commodities for market, and are so “employed within the area of production (as defined by the Secretary).” 2
The district court found that the evidence sustained that contention, and hence that Southern Farms, Inc., had not been in violation of the Act. The district court expressed the further opinion “that even should the business conducted by said defendant come within the provisions of the Act, an injunction should not issue.”
The primary question is whether Southern Farms’ employees are “employed in the area of production” as that term has been defined by the Secretary.3 To be so employed an employee who handles eggs must be employed in an establishment in which 95% of the eggs come either from farms within a 50-mile area, or from “farm assemblers or other establishments through which the commodity customarily moves.”
It was stipulated that more than 5% of the eggs handled at Southern Farms’ plant in Itta Bena come from flocks of hens on farms more than 50 airmiles from Itta Bena. The parties agree on their *132statement of the issue. “The issue therefore is whether the eggs from out-of-area farms, in excess of the 5% tolerance, come to the defendant through ‘farm assemblers or other establishments through which the commodity customarily moves’, which are themselves located within the 50-mile limit.”
The out-of-area eggs are supplied to Southern Farms by Greenwood Egg Company and two other suppliers. Between September 1959 and July 1960 the eggs supplied by Greenwood alone accounted for more than 20% of the eggs handled by Southern Farms. Greenwood collects in its truck eggs from a number of its different farms, buys eggs produced on other farms, and hauls them to Itta Bena. Greenwood is a partnership, and its two partners are also stockholders in Southern Farms. One of the Greenwood partners testified that, “the only assembly facilities Greenwood Egg Company has as such would be in conjunction with Southern Farms facilities.”
Since Greenwood’s truck collects eggs beyond the 50-mile area, the truck cannot qualify as a “farm assembler” or an “establishment through which” the eggs move within the specified distance. The Greenwood partner who testified readily admitted that Greenwood does not maintain a plant where it assembles eggs and that its truck driver brings the eggs not to Greenwood Egg Company but to Southern Farms at Itta Bena. That being true, it is not material that he further testified, “We have full-time employees there at the office (of Southern Farms), paid by Greenwood Egg Company.” Very clearly, we think, the evidence failed to establish that Greenwood was a “farm assembler” or “other establishment” through which the eggs customarily move within the specified distance. We hold that the district court erred in concluding that Southern Farms was exempt from the wage provisions of the Act under Section 13(a) (10).
The Secretary questions the findings of fact from which the district court concluded that, in any event, an injunction should not issue.4 Those findings are not clearly erroneous. Rule 52(a), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. Under such findings, while the judgment must be reversed, the district court, in its discretion, may decline to issue an injunction.5 The judgment is therefore reversed and the cause remanded.
Reversed and remanded.