9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Determination of whether the Bhiwandi and Patalganga units are distinct establishments or branches of the same establishment under the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. 2. Application of Section 2-A of the Act to the two units. 3. Entitlement to the benefit of the infancy period under Section 16(1)(b) of the Act. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Determination of whether the Bhiwandi and Patalganga units are distinct establishments or branches of the same establishment under the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952: The petitioner, a Private Limited Company, argued that the Bhiwandi and Patalganga units are distinct and different establishments. The Bhiwandi unit manufactures zinc oxide, while the Patalganga unit manufactures sulphuric acid. The petitioner maintained separate books of accounts, profit and loss accounts, and balance sheets for each unit. The employees of the two units were separate, and there was no functional integrality between them. The Commissioner, however, contended that both units were owned by the same set of persons, managed by a common Managing Director, and engaged in the manufacture of heavy and fine chemicals, thus qualifying as branches of the same establishment. 2. Application of Section 2-A of the Act to the two units: Section 2-A of the Act defines an establishment as encompassing all departments or branches, regardless of their location. The petitioner argued that there was no functional integrality between the two units, and they should be treated as separate establishments. The Commissioner relied on factors such as common ownership, administrative services, and consolidated balance sheets to assert that the two units were branches of the same establishment. The court referred to several precedents, including the Supreme Court decision in Pratap Press v. Delhi Press Workers Union, which emphasized the importance of functional integrality in determining whether different units form part of the same establishment. 3. Entitlement to the benefit of the infancy period under Section 16(1)(b) of the Act: The petitioner sought the benefit of the infancy period under Section 16(1)(b) of the Act for the Patalganga unit, asserting that it was a distinct establishment. The court considered the factual position, including the separate locations, different products manufactured, separate sets of workers, and maintenance of separate books of accounts for the two units. The court concluded that the factors pointed out by the Commissioner did not establish functional integrality between the two units. Conclusion: The court held that the Bhiwandi and Patalganga units are distinct and different establishments. The factors relied upon by the Commissioner, such as common ownership, administrative services, and consolidated balance sheets, were insufficient to establish functional integrality. The court quashed the Commissioner's decision in Ex. B and declared that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit claimed in Ex. A, with effect from the date claimed. The rule was made absolute, with parties bearing their own costs.
|
