9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (3) TMI 755X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of the money due from the petitioner under the Act. It transpires that the petitioner contended that the Act was not applicable, and therefore, an enquiry was constituted under sub clause 2 of Section (7-A) to enquire, as to whether the Act was applicable on the petitioner's firm or not. The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner by an order dated 21.8.2006, held that the Act was applicable to the petitioner's firm and that the coverage was also extended to the three other units. 3. Heard Sri A.K. Srivastava, the learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri D.M. Chaudhury, the learned Counsel appearing for the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner. 4. The bone of contention before this Court is, that the petitioner is a partnership ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... : 2-A. Establishment to include all departments and branches.- For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that where an establishment consists of different departments or has branches, whether situate in the same place or in different places, all such departments or branches shall be treated as parts of the same establishment. 7. The aforesaid provision clearly indicates that where an establishment consists of different departments or branches located at the same place or at different places, such departments or branches would be treated as a part of the same establishment. 8. In Management of Pratap Press, New Delhi v. Secretary, Delhi Press Workers Union, Delhi , the Supreme Court held that in order to decide as to whethe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t that the two units were registered separately would still bring the units within the grip of the Act. The Supreme Court further found that if the veil was pierced, it would be found that the two units are one of the same, and therefore, the two units would be covered under the provisions of Act as an establishment for the purpose of coverage under the said Act. 11. In Noor Niwas Nursery Public School v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and Ors. AIR 2001 SC 277, the Supreme Court held- Whether two units are one or distinct will have to be considered in the light of the provisions of Section 2A of the Act which declares that where an establishment consists of different departments or has branches whether situate in the same place ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
