P.S. Narayana, J. - (1.) THIS Court on 4 -1 -2007 issued rule nisi and while ordering notice in W.P.M.P. No. 280/2007 it was ordered: "Pending further orders there shall be interim stay as prayed for, for a period of four weeks, from today".
(2.) THE Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus declaring the orders of the respondent dated 16 -6 -2005 in proceedings No. AP/RO/GNT/APFC(ENF)/7A order/2005/166 and also the orders of the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi dated 7 -11 -2006 in ATA No. 576(1)/2005 as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, discriminatory, void, against the principles of natural justice and unsustainable and consequently to set aside the orders of the respondent dated 16 -5 -2005 in proceedings No. AP/RO/GNT/APFC(ENF)/7A Order/2005/166 and to pass such other suitable orders. Sri T. Rajendra Prasad, the learned Counsel representing the writ petitioner had taken this Court through the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition and also further had taken this Court through the order in ATA 476(1)/2005 made by the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi and also further had taken this Court through the order made by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner dated 16 -5 -2005. The learned Counsel would maintain that on the mere relationship of the parties or on the mere ground that the phone numbers are common and they had been using the common office room, the petitioner cannot be fastened with the liability. The learned Counsel would maintain that the three units have been maintaining separate account books and separate business licences and operating the business separately and hence it cannot be said that there is any functional integrity whatsoever to treat all these units as one establishment. The learned Counsel also placed strong reliance on several decisions to substantiate his submissions.
(3.) ON the contrary Sri R.N. Reddy, the learned Standing Counsel representing the respondent would contend that both the original authority and the appellate Tribunal recorded concurrent findings in relation to the question whether these units by the treated as separate units or the same to be treated as an establishment for the purposes of Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1952, hereinafter in short referred to as "Act" for the purpose of convenience. The learned Counsel also would maintain that the findings recorded by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner would clearly establish functional integrity among these units and hence for the purposes of applicability of the Act, the same to be treated as an establishment within the meaning of the Act and hence the findings recorded by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, as confirmed by the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, not to be disturbed and the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. The learned Counsel also placed strong reliance on certain decisions to substantiate his submissions.;