- (1.) This writ appeal is directed against the Judgment and Order dated 27th/28th October, 1999 rendered by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 1834 of 1994. While dismissing the said petition, the learned Single Judge was pleased to confirm the order passed by the respondent No. 1 on 11/3/1994 thereby holding that respondent No. 3 is not a branch or department of respondent No. 2.
(2.) Respondent No. 2 is a partnership firm engaged in the business of trading and selling of umbrellas and in the said name and style it has been in existence for the last about 140 years. It decided to diversify its business activities and, therefore, established a factor for the manufacture of umbrellas some times in the year 1940 and respondent No. 3 is the said factory. Respondent No. 2 was brought within the purview of the Act, as a scheduled industry with effect from 1/5/1962 but respondent No. 3 was not included as a scheduled industry under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (the P.F. Act for short). It appears on 25/1/1988 respondent No. 1 passed an order holding that respondent No. 2 was bound to comply with the provisions of the P.F. Act with effect from 1/5/1962 in respect of the employees working in its factory known as "M/s. National Umbrella Factory" (respondent No. 3). This order came to be challenged in Writ Petition No. 727 of 1988 and the petition was allowed on 4/2/1993 by remanding a de novo inquiry to be conducted by respondent No. 1 so as to decide whether respondent No. 3 is a branch or department of respondent No. 2, as envisaged under Section 2A of the P.F. Act. On remand, the parties appeared before the respondent No. 1, filed their statement of claims/Written Statements and by his order dated 11/3/1994, the respondent No. 1 held that respondent No. 3 cannot be called as part and parcel or an integral part of respondent No. 2 nor could it be considered as a contractor exclusively engaged by respondent No. 2. The findings recorded by the respondent No. 1 in the said order are reproduced as under: The fore-going facts and figures would establish that there is nothing common except ownership and consolidation of final accounts between the establishments and there is hardly any inter-dependency for their survival. This fact is clear as even when the factory remained closed there was no disruption in the activity of the establishments. A mere fact of common ownership and consolidation of final accounts cannot be substantive factor for considering two separate establishments as one integral whole for the purpose of extending the Provident Fund benefits. In the instant case there is total absence of financial dealing between the establishments and transferability of employees which could be the most important entities for the purpose of considering them as a composite unit.
(3.) This order dated 11/3/1994 passed by the respondent No. 1 came to be challenged in Writ Petition No. 1834 of 1994, which petition came to be dismissed by the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge was pleased to hold that the claim made by the petitioner - Union for treating respondent Nos. 2 and 3 as one unit within the meaning of Section 2A of the P.F. Act could not accepted and the test of the functional integrality between the two units was not established. The arguments advanced by the petitioner - Union that the respondent No. 2 was admittedly the owner of respondent No. 3 and was also supplier of raw materials were not accepted to hold that respondent No. 3 is part and parcel or a branch/department of respondent No. 2.;