- (1.) COMMON prayer of the petitioners in all these writ petitions is as under: (a) to quash the order dated October 10, 1997 by the learned Appellate Tribunal and order dated October 4, 1997 passed by the learned Regional Provident Fund commissioner. (b) to declare that the establishment of the petitioner is an independent establishment and the petitioner-establishment is entitled to the infancy period of three years. (c) to declare that the establishment of shree Vishal Printers Ltd. and Times publishing House Ltd. are separate establishments and they cannot be clubbed with the establishment of Bennett Coleman and Co. Ltd. (d) to restrain the respondent from imposing any liability of P. F. contribution upon the petitioner-establishment of the employees of Shree Vishal Printers Ltd. and Times publishing House Ltd. (e) to restrain the respondent from demanding any PF contribution pursuant to the order dated October 4, 1997 passed by the regional Provident Fund Commissioner and order dated October 10, 1997 passed by the appellate Tribunal. "
(2.) CONTEXTUAL facts depict that the petitioner Times Publishing House (for short 'tph') is a registered company under the provisions of the Companies Act. It was incorporated in the year 1983 since then it is doing the business. It also undertook the work of publishing a newspaper for a few months thereafter the same was discontinued. After discontinuation of publishing work the petitioner entered into an agreement with bennett Coleman and Co. (for short 'bc') for distribution of its newspapers and for collection of advertisements. Shree Vishal Printers (for short 'svp') also entered into an agreement with Bennett Coieman and Co. The TPH is having number of offices in various places in india and all the offices are working and doing the similar business as the Jaipur unit was doing but the Jaipur unit was having its independent entity and was independent from all the units which are working at various places like bangalore and Patna etc. The TPH is engaged in , publication of financial times from Delhi. Bombav and Bangalore and is acting as advertisement booking agent at Bombay. After undertaking the work at Jaipur TPH sent a letter to Regional Provident Fund Commissioner informing that they are entitled to get infancy benefits under the provisions of Section 16 of the Employees' Provident Funds and miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short 'pf Act'), but no reply was received. After the infancy period of three years, the TPH sent letter dated February 24, 1988 showing its intention to implement the provision of PF Act. The required details were also submitted. No notice under Section 7-A was issued to TPH by respondents. The notice was issued to BC under section 7-A, however the TPH implemented the provisions of PF Act. The work of the TPH was to collect advertisement and to distribute newspapers so published by BC but there was no financial or administrative control of BC. But the PF Commissioner vide order dated october 4, 1990 has wrongly clubbed the TPH with BC. The business of BC is of publishing newspapers and magazines etc. For the purpose of distribution of newspapers of BC used to give commission to TPH. BC and SVP have their own Board of Directors, none of the directors of the said companies are common. Promoters shareholders and distributors of 5 TPH are not members or relatives of promoters or Directors of BC. Thus they are incorporated companies. They are having separate Directors. They were having their own premises, standing orders, wage structures. ESI accounts etc. Provisions of Section 16 of PF Act applies to every establishment which is a factory, engaged in any industry, specified in Schedule 1 in which 20 or more persons are employed. The establishments of the TPH, BC and SVP are covered under Section 1 (3) of PF Act. Section 16 would be applicable after the expiry of infancy period of three years. Since the BC was not having any printing press it entered into agreement with SVP. The TPH challenged the order dated October 4, 1990 before the Legal advisor Central Government Ministry of labour, During pendency of representation the epf Appellate Tribunal was constituted and the representation of TPH was transferred to the tribunal without any notice to TPH. The tribunal considering submissions dismissed the appeals on October 10,1997 holding that all the three petitions being devoid of merit were liable to be dismissed.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the TPH canvassed that all the three companies have not correlation with each other. There was no functional integrity between the three companies. There was no unity of ownership or management or control or unity of finance or unity of labour or unity of employment or inter-dependence of the parties. They were having their separate accounts. They were registered under different enactment separately. They had their own finance for their activities. Their code numbers were separate. Reliance is placed on Hotel mahaveer v. RPF Commissioner, 2002-I-LLJ-244; district Transport Manager v. Dilip kumar Nayak (1997) 9 SCC 296 : 1997-II-LLJ-382; aditya Synthetics v. Union of India, 1994-II-LLJ-76 (Raj) and Isha Steel Treatment v. Association of Engineering Workers, bombay AIR 1987 SC 1478 : (1987)2 SCC 203 : 1987-I-LLJ-427.;