Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.19 seconds)
Leos Mercantile Corporation, Madras vs Ministry Of Labour, Govt. Of India, New ... on 7 August, 1986
cites
Section 1 in Employees Provident Funds Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 [Entire Act]
The Management Of Antiseptic (Journal) ... vs A. Gangadharan And The Government Of ... on 28 February, 1984
"As observed in the above decision, the real purpose of the test must be to find out the true relation between the parts, branches, units, etc., and if in their true relation they constitute one integrated whole, then it must be held that the 'establishment' is one. But, on the contrary, if they do not constitute one integrated whole, then each unit must be held to be independent and a separate one."
The Coinage Act, 2011
Section 2A in Employees Provident Funds Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 [Entire Act]
Section 16 in Employees Provident Funds Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 [Entire Act]
P.S.N.S. Ambalavana Chettiar And Co. ... vs Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, ... on 15 November, 1968
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 :
1