Gujarat High Court
Crystal vs Regional on 29 September, 2011
Bench: V. M. Sahai, Ks Jhaveri
Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
LPA/1302/2011 4/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL No. 1302 of 2011
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 8044 of 2011
To
LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL No. 1304 of 2011
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 8046 of 2011
With
CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 9292 of 2011
In
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 1302 of 2011
With
CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 8045 of 2011
In
FIRST APPEAL (STAMP NUMBER) No. 39 of 2011
To
CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 8046 of 2011
In
FIRST APPEAL No. 2115 of
2011
=========================================================
CRYSTAL
FOUNDRY FLUXES PVT LTD - Appellant(s)
Versus
REGIONAL
PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
DIPAK R DAVE for
Appellant(s) : 1,
None for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 29/09/2011
ORAL
ORDER
(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI) By way of these appeals, the appellants have challenged judgment and order dated 12.7.2011 passed in Special Civil Application 8044 of 2011 and other allied matters by learned Single Judge; whereby, learned Single Judge has dismissed the petitions and confirmed the order dated 3.3.2011 in ATA No.85(5) 2009 by Presiding Officer, EPFAT.
The facts of the case are that in the writ petition, petitioners had challenged order dated 18.12.2008 and 13.5.2009 passed by the Assistant P.F. Commissioner; whereby, the Commissioner directed the Inquiry Officer to collect the details of monthly wages of all the 3 units of the petitioner from 1.8.2007 and directed to conduct the inquiry for determination of unpaid dues, if any. Against the said order, appellants preferred appeal before the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi being ATA No.85(5) 2009 and the Tribunal by its order dated 3.3.2011 dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellants. By the impugned order, learned Single Judge confirmed both the above referred orders.
Heard Mr. Dipak R. Dave, learned counsel for the appellants.
The Appellate Authority while considering the case of the appellants, in para 6 and 7 of the order, has observed as under:
"6. Two establishments can be treated as one if there is financial, managerial of functional integrity between the two. In the decision reported in 1960 Supreme Court page 56 Associate Cement Company Ltd. Vs.Workmen, the lordship held that, "in one case unity of ownership management and control may be an important test in another case financial integrity or general unity may be competent test and in still another case the important test may be the unity of employment." The perusal of the decision reveals that there is no fixed formula to determine whether 2 establishments are one or not and each case is to be decided on is own merit. In the case in hand, the order of the EPF Authority reveals that all the establishments are located at one place and they are being managed and controlled by one family so this proves that there is geographical proximity and managerial control which rests with one family. All the establishments were using common telephone and address as well as logo. Also, their line of business is same. All these facts show that there was interdependence between the establishments which proves the point of functional integrity. In the case of M/s. Rajasthan P.K. Goods Transport Company Vs. Regional PF Commissioner reported in AIR 1997 Supreme Court at page 48 the Lordship held that,"where management is common, the letter head is same, telephone number and most of the partner were common and place of business is common the mere fact that the two unities were registered separately would still bring the unit within the unity of 2(a)." In this case, since there is managerial and functional integrity and geographical proximity. So they are rightly treated as one establishment and covered under the Act.
7. The fact that the establishments are registered separately is not a sufficient ground to given them a separate identity. In the case of RPF Commissioner Vs.M/s. Narayani Udyog reported in 1996 Vol.5 SCC page 522 the lordship held that, "the High Court was wholly unjustified in concluding that both the firms being registered under the Companies Act as 2 different independent entities were 2 independent companies and could not be clubbed together for the purpose of making the contribution under Section 7A of the Act. It is true as found by the High Court that they are registered as 2 independent units and represented specifically by the member of Hindu Undivided Joint Family. Nonetheless the Commissioner recorded as a fact the functional integrity between the 2 concerns. Consequently, the definition of establishment which is widely defined would encompass within its ambit the 2 units as establishment for the purpose of the Act."
In the above view of the matter, we are in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge as well as by the Tribunal.
In view of the above, these appeals are devoid of any merits and deserve to be dismissed. Accordingly, these appeals are dismissed.
In view of order passed in appeals, no order is required in Civil Applications and the same are dismissed accordingly.
(V. M. SAHAI, J.) (K.S.JHAVERI, J.) (ashish) Top