Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

13.In 1997-1-LLJ-1167 (D.S.Associates & Ors. v. R.P.F. Commr.), the Karnataka High Court, after referring to various judgments described how the tests for deciding whether there was functional integrality should be applied as follows:-

"12. To answer and to satisfy the test of functional integrality, the respondent has applied only the fact of common ownership of the two units and the location of two units in the common premises. In my view, the fact recorded and the test applied by respondent 1 is not the relevant test to consider the applicability of Section 2-A of Provident Fund Act. The predominant test as enunciated by Supreme Court and this Court in Ganapathy Bhandarkar's case (supra), is whether subsequent unit viz., M/s.Mody Sales and Service could survive on closure of M/s.Devesh Sandeep Associates and whether in matters of finance and employment, the employer has actually kept the two units distinct or integrated. Mere fact of common ownership of the two units and mere location of the two units in common premises by itself is not sufficient to satisfy the test of functional integrality and further mere common object of the two units to carry on the business of sale and servicing of wall papers and similarly when two units work for each other would also not answer the test of functional integrality. The first and foremost to establish the test of functional integrality would be whether the second unit would survive in the absence of first unit or when the first unit is closed whether the second unit continues to do its business activity. "