Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.19 seconds)
Regional Provident Fund Commissioner vs M/S.Prabha Beverages Private Ltd on 12 July, 2011 cites

Noor Niwas Nursery Public School vs Regional Provident Fund Commr. & Ors on 8 December, 2000

17.The learned counsel for the appellant would also rely upon yet another judgment of the Supreme Court in Noor Niwas Nursery Public School vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and Others, (2001) 1 SCC 1 and would contend that the first respondent-company cannot exist conveniently and reasonably without M/s.Parle (Exports) Pvt. Ltd. This is one of the tests to find out whether the establishment is protected under Section 16 of the Act. In our opinion, the said judgement is also not applicable to the present case. In that judgment, the Supreme Court was considering a case where two units were run by the same society and they were located in one and the same address and thereby establishing geographical proximity. As both the units are run by the same society and that on a factual finding that one unit cannot exist conveniently and reasonably without the other, the Apex Court found that both the units are one and the same. However, in the present case, as has been pointed out earlier, except the supply of raw materials and to prescribe the manner in which the unit is to be located, there is no other control over the manufacturity activity by M/s.Parle (Exports) Pvt. Ltd.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 27 - S R Babu - Full Document

Karachi Bakery vs Regional Provident Fund Commissioner on 29 March, 1990

A similar view has also been taken by the by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the judgment reported in 1991 (62) FLR 627 (Karachi Bakery vs. Regional Provident Fund..) and by the Rajasthan High Court in the judgment reported in 2007 (11) FLR 394 (Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (The) and Anr. vs. Moti Warping Factory. By placing reliance on the above judgments, the learned Judge held that the first respondent-company had engaged only in manufacturing activity, which is entitled to the benefit of Section 16(1)(d) of the Act.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 15 - Cited by 507 - Full Document

The Associated Cement Companies ... vs Their Workmen on 11 September, 1959

16.In the said case, the Supreme Court was considering the question as to whether a limestone quarry owned by the same company situate about a mile and half from one place to another would be considered for the purpose of one establishment. The Apex Court laid the test that manufacturing unit is completely depending upon the principal raw material for the manufacture of cement and the other company is depending exclusively for the supply of limestone on the said quarry. To put it otherwise, one company is depending upon the raw material of the other company and in turn, for that raw material, the other company was depending upon the limestone quarry. Only in that context, the Apex Court found that there was functional integrality. Even otherwise, the Apex Court, in order to find out the relationship between the two companies for functional integrality, found that several points should be considered including (1) ownership, (2) control and supervision, (3) finance, (4) management and employment, (5)geographical proximity and (6)general unity of purpose and functional integrality. In the case on hand, it is to be seen from the franchise agreement that except supplying the raw material and for establishing the unit as per its specification, M/s.Parle (Exports) Pvt. Ltd. has no control over the management and employment of the first respondent-company. Further, the first respondent is owned by the company as such and the control and supervision for the manufacturing activity vest in the first respondent-company only. Hence, the said judgment cannot be made applicable to the facts of the present case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 33 - S K Das - Full Document
1   2 Next