Dr. SAMBUDDHA CHAKRABARTI, J. - (1.) THESE two appeals arise out of a judgment and order, dated October 26, 2009 passed in Paramount Leathers v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and Another (W.P. 1318 (W)/2008) and out of an order of the same date passed in Wu Leathers v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and Another (W.P. 1312 (W)/2008). The learned Trial Judge had dismissed the first writ petition and by a subsequent order His Lordship dismissed the second writ petition also holding that in view of the dismissal of the writ petition filed by Paramount Leathers nothing remained to be done in the second writ petition. The petitioners of the two writ petitions feeling aggrieved have filed two appeals which have been re-numbered as F.M.A. 65/2010 and F.M.A. 66/2010 respectively. Since both these appeals raise the same questions of law they were analogously taken up for hearing and are being disposed of by a common judgment and order.
(2.) PARAMOUNT Leather and Wu Leathers are two partnership firms having their respective offices in Matheswartala Road, Tiljala, Kolkata-16, in close proximity to each other. There is still another similarity between these two partnership firms i.e. both deal in leather and leather products. They have a common part-time employee as an Accountant as well. The Provident Fund authorities sent a squad of officials in 2001 to these two establishments. They collected and seized some documents and registers. In 2003 these two establishments were jointly served with a notice whereby they were informed that as they had employed 24 persons in April, 1999 the provision of Section 1(3) of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (the Act, for short) was attracted and as such a code number was allotted to both these establishments together and the appellants were directed to remit the dues and arrears as mentioned in the notice. The appellants made their respective representations to the authorities contending inter alia that they were not liable to be covered under the Act. Again the Provident Fund authorities in exercise of the power under Section 7-A of the Act by another Memo of 2003 summoned them to appear before the authorities on May 27, 2003 and asked them to give evidence and produce the documents mentioned in the notice and other relevant documents "for conducting an enquiry and determining the amount due" from them. Ultimately, the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner passed an order, dated December 14/18, 2007, by which he inter alia held that real management and control belonged to the same owners and due to common supervision and control clubbing these two units was the right approach to extend the benefits of the Act and the scheme. He further held that the unity of ownership, management, supervisory control, infrastructure, employability etc. in both these units had been proved conclusively and hence these two establishments were rightly covered by the department by clubbing their entities. The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner in exercise of the powers vested under Section 7-A of the Act accepted the request of the department and determined the dues to be paid by these two establishments from April, 1999 to August, 2001 to the Provident Fund authorities.
(3.) THIS order, as already mentioned, was assailed in two writ petitions by the appellants. The Provident Fund authorities had contested the writ petition by filing an Affidavit-in-Opposition. The learned Trial Judge dismissed the writ petitions on the ground of availability of alternative remedy. We have gone through the relevant records, the writ petitions, the Affidavits and have considered the submissions of the learned advocates for the respective parties.;