Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7.Before the learned single Judge, two questions were raised, viz., i) when the original authority, namely, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner himself has passed an order on the basis of the enquiry conducted under Section 7-A of the Act, whether he would be competent to file a writ petition challenging the Appellate Tribunal's order reversing his order; and ii) whether the first respondent-company is a contractor of M/s.Parle (Exports) Pvt. Ltd., under the franchise agreement or is an agent. In the event it is held that the first respondent-company is only a contractor of M/s.Parle (Exports) Pvt. Ltd. under the franchise agreement, it should have the benefit of infancy period for 3 years from 04.08.1987. On the other hand, if it is held that it is an agent of M/s.Parle (Exports) Pvt. Ltd., then the said benefit is not available to the first respondent-company in view of the fact that M/s.Parle (Exports) Pvt. Ltd., is an establishment covered under the Act.

12.Mr.Ramu, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, would submit that apart from the above clause, the first respondent-company should manufacture the beverages in a plant approved by M/s.Parle (Exports) Pvt. Ltd. and located within the described territory under the agreement. He would draw our attention to various clauses of the agreement in order to submit that the first respondent-company is nothing but an agent of M/s.Parle (Exports) Pvt. Ltd. These conditions of the agreement should be considered with reference to the actual activities carried on by the first respondent-company.

13.It is true that by virtue of the franchise agreement, the first respondent-company is bound to purchase the essence, viz., the raw materials for manufacturing the beverages. Nevertheless, factually it could be seen that the first respondent-company, in order to set up the unit, availed a loan of Rs.65 lakhs from SIPCOT, Tamil Nadu, under the category that it is a new venture. It has also availed credit facilities from State Bank of Travancore, Marthandam. The Government of Tamil Nadu recommended the registration of the first respondent-company as a new industrial undertaking to the Deputy Director of General of Technical Development. The Tamil Nadu Electricity Board also sanctioned electricity supply with special zone applicable to the new industrial units. It was also recognised as a small scale industrial unit by the Director of Industries and Commerce. It has also obtained licence from the Ministry of Food and Civil Supplies, Government of India, under the Production Order 1995. Though the first respondent-company has to manufacture beverages strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions under the franchise agreement, the entire manufacturing activity is not controlled by M/s.Parle (Exports) Pvt. Ltd. The franchise agreement should be read in consonance with the actual activities carried on by the first respondent-company. By mere agreement of undertaking to manufacture beverages only by using the essence supplied by M/s.Parle (Exports) Pvt. Ltd. with certain other clauses controlling the first respondent-company only in order to ensure the quality of the beverages, that would not change the character of the unit as a new venture.

18.The two establishments are independent and the first respondent-company is only expected to manufacture beverages by using the raw materials supplied by M/s.Parle (Exports) Pvt. Ltd. and upto their specification. Hence, both the units cannot be considered as either one unit or the first respondent-company is an agent of M/s.Parle (Exports) Pvt. Ltd. The first respondent-company is an independent establishment as provided under Section 2-A of the Act. Hence, the above contention of Mr.Ramu, learned counsel for the appellant is also liable to be rejected.