Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

"It is perhaps impossible to lay down any one test as an absolute and invariable test for all cases. The real purpose of these tests is to find out the true relation between the arts, branches, units, etc. If in their true relation they constitute one integrated whole, we say that the establishment is one; if on the contrary they do not constitute one integrated whole, each unit is then a separate unit. How, the relation between the units will be judged must depend on the facts proved, having regard to the scheme and object of the statute. Thus in one case, the unity of ownership, management and control may be the important test, in another case functional integrity or general unity may be the important test; and in still another case, the important test may be the unity of employment. Indeed, in a large number of cases several tests may fall for consideration at the same time. The difficulty of applying these tests arises because of the complexities of modern industrial organisation; many enterprises may have functional integrity between factories which are separately owned; some may be integrated in part with units or factories having the same ownership and in part w or plants which are owned. In the midst of all these complexities it may be difficult to discover thread of unity. In an American decision, Donald L. Nordling v. Ford Motor Company, 1950 28 ALR 2d 272, there is an example of an industrial product consisting of 3,800 or 4,000 parts, about 900 of which came out of one plant, some came from other plants owned by the same company and still others came from plants independently owned, and a shutdown caused by a strike or other labour dispute at any one of the plants might conceivably cause a closure of the main plant or factory".

9. The tests laid down in Associated Cement Company's case (supra), was followed in the 1 case of management of pratap Press, New Delhi v. Secretary, Delhi Press Workers' Union, Delhi (1960-I-LLJ-497). In that case, the Apex Court was pleased to emphasise on the test of functional integrality. The Court was pleased to observe as under :

"In all such cases therefore, the Court has to consider with care how far there is "functional integrality" meaning thereby such functional inter-dependence that one unit cannot exist conveniently and reasonably without the other and on the further question whether in matters of finance and employment, the employer has actually kept the two units distinct or integrated".

10. In the case of Ganapathy Bhandarkar (Supra), this Court following the observations made in Associated Cement Company's case (supra) and in Management of Pratap Press's case (Supra), was pleased to observe that test of substantial mutual dependability is the most relevant test of financial integrality test. In the sense whether one unit can exist in the absence of another unit in the alternative whether 2nd unit could survive on the closure of first unit. This Court while propounding the test of functional integrality in its usual succinct way has squeezed all the test and theories so far propounded in one phrase by stating 'can one unit survive in the absence of another unit'. This is the test that is required to be applied by the authorities under Provident Fund Act to determine whether one unit is separate establishment or merely branch of department of an earlier establishment.

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 the 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. This aspect has not been noticed by first respondent in its order dated September 9, 1986 and in my view, the test applied by first respondent is not the relevant test laid down by decisions of Supreme Court and this Court in Ganapathy Bhandarkar's case (supra). In this view of the matter, the impugned order dated September 9, 1986 passed by 1st respondent is not only opposed to the provisions of the Provident Fund Act but also to the decision of jurisdictional Court.