Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.41 seconds)
Documents citing P.S.N.S. Ambalavana Chettiar And Co. ... vs Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, ... on 15 November, 1968

Ebrahim Currim And Sons vs Regional P.F. Commissioner And Anr. on 4 February, 1993

16. The learned counsel for respondent No. 1 has relied on judgment of High Court of Madras in the case of Messrs P.S.N.S. Ambalavana Chettiar & Co. (P) Ltd., Madras v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Madras, reported in (1970-1-LLJ-296) Mad 194 and in case of A Gangadharan v. Govt. of India reported in (1978-II-LLJ-317). In my opinion both these judgments are clearly distinguishable and do not really assist the learned counsel.
Bombay High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

Mohan Brothers vs Regional Provident Fund Commisisoner on 29 April, 2003

In the case of P.S.N.S. Ambalavana Chettiar (supra) it was held that a garment manufacturer might have different departments such as purchasing section, tailoring section and a selling section and that in such cases, it might not be proper to separate the different sections, as each one of them is an integral part of the main business. It was also held that a factory might have different departments involving purchase of raw material, process of manufacturing, maintenance of accounts and sale of finished goods and they might be located at different places but all these departments discharge various functions, which are part of a single integrated activity.
Delhi High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - M Sharma - Full Document

Mumbai Mazdoor Sangh vs Regional Provident Fund Commissioner ... on 27 October, 1999

In this regard the learned Judge relied on a judgment reported in the case of P.S.M.S.A Chettiar and Co. (P) Ltd. v. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Madras, reported in (1970-I-LLJ-296) (Mad) and rejected the submission made on behalf of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner in para 8 of his judgment after quoting extensively from the above referred judgment.
Bombay High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 2 - A P Shah - Full Document

Leos Mercantile Corporation, Madras vs Ministry Of Labour, Govt. Of India, New ... on 7 August, 1986

Though 'factory' stands defined under S. 2(g) of the Act, yet it falls within the general category of 'establishment' and to such an 'establishment' S. 2A of the Act would certainly be attracted. An 'establishment' may involve the running of a factory as well as the administrative offices, whether at one place of at different places and the employment strength of all these units, if they go to constitute an integral whole must be aggregated to find out whether the mischief of the Act is attracted or not. As already stated, it is not claimed in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that offices at Madras or Bombay have got independent existence and they carry on separate businesses, which have nothing to do with the functioning of the factory at Guindy, Madras. A similar question came up for consideration before Ramakrishnan, J. in P. S. N. S. A. Chettiar and Co., Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Madras (1970-I-LLJ-296), and the learned Judge annexing the meaning 'house of business' to the word 'establishment' in the Act as per the earlier pronouncements of this Court, proceeded to consider the question as to whether a factory at one place and office in another place constitute one 'house of business' so as to form a single establishment for the purposes of the Act. The following observations of the learned Judge at P. 298 of (1970-I-LLJ-296) are worth noting :
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Leos Mercantile Corporation By Its ... vs The Secretary Ministry Of Labour, ... on 7 August, 1986

Though 'factory' stands defined under Section 2(g) of the Act, yet it falls within the general category of 'establishment' and to such an 'establishment' Section 2A of the Act would certainly be attracted. An 'establishment' may involve the running of a factory as well as the administrative offices, whether at one place or at different places and the employment strength, of all these units, if they go to constitute an integral whole must be aggregated to find out whether the mischief of the Act is attracted or not. As already stated, it is not claimed in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition that offices at Madras or Bombay have got independent existence and they carry on separate businesses, which have nothing to do with the functioning of the factory at Guindy, Madras. A similar question came up for consideration before Ramakrishnan, J. in P.S.N.S.A. Chettiar and Co. v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Madras , and the learned Judge annexing the meaning 'house of business' to the word 'establishment' in the Act as per the earlier pronouncements of this Court, proceeded to consider the question as to whether a factory at one place and office , at another place constitute one 'house of business' so as to form a single establishment for the purposes of the Act. The following observations of the learned Judge are worth noting:
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1