9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (7) TMI 1198X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... de assigned to the establishment being P.F. Code No.WB/25008. The Provident Fund accounts of the establishment of the petitioners are maintained in the office of Beedi Cell of the office of R.P.F.C. West Bengal at Barrackpore. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Sub-Regional Office by a registered coverage letter dated 31st January, 2000 for the second time extended the coverage of the said Act and the Scheme framed thereunder to the Tungidighi unit of the petitioners and allotted a new separate code being Code No. WB/SLG/30491 for the said manufacturing unit of the petitioner at Tungidighi. The petitioners are aggrieved by reason of allotment of a new separate Code to the said Tungidhighi unit and thereafter initiating a proceeding under Section 7A of the said Act by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner's Sub-Regional office at Siliguri on the basis of notice dated 25th May, 2000 on the ground that the establishment of the petitioners has failed to remit the provident fund, employees pension funds and insurance funds dues under the newly allotted P.F. Code No.WB/30491 for the period 12/1999-4/2000. The principal grievance of the petitioners is that in view of the cover ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the unit of the petitioner No.1 would be further amplified by Section 36A and 38 of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952. Mr. Basu has relied upon a decision, Belal Biri Factory vs. Regional P.F. Commr. reported in 2006(4)CHN 566 paragraph 26 to show that it has been recognized by this Court that in terms of Section 2A of the said Act for the purpose of applicability of the said Act as well as for determination of the total dues of an establishment having different branches and/or departments in different places, all the departments and/or branches would be treated as a part of the principal establishment. Mr. Anil Gupta, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Regional Provident Fund Authorities submits that the petitioner No.1 establishment has been covered with effect from 18.12.1989 under the schedule "Biri" and allotted a Code No. W.B./30491. With a view to bring the establishment under the purview of the Act, the office covered the establishment with effect from 18th December, 1989 as the establishment falls under the jurisdiction of Sub-Regional office, Siliguri. It is submitted that Section 2A of the said Act has no manner of application while interpreting ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection 2A of the said Act and stated : "Section 2A of the said Act makes it clear that for the purpose of ascertainment of applicability of the act as well as for determination of the total dues of an establishment having different branches and/or departments in different places, all the departments and/or branches will be treated as a part of the principal establishment. This conclusion is arrived at by this Court by following the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court which are as follows : (i) 1996(5) SCC 552, Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Jaipur vs. Naraini Udoyog & Ors. (ii) 2001(1) SCC 1, Noor Nivas Nursery Public Schol vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner & Ors. The plain reading of Section 1(3)(a) and 2A of the said Act makes it clear that for the purpose of the said Act different branches and/or departments whether situated in the same place or in different places of such departments and branches shall be treated as part of the same establishment. An establishment would be treated as factory for the purpose of Act if such establishment having a factory engaged in any industry specified in Schedule I and in which factory as manufacturers employed. The Act ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the important tst; in another case functional integrality or general unity may be the important test, and in still another case the important test may be the unity of employment. (5) Many enterprises may have functional integrality between factories, which are separately owned; some may be integrated in part with units or factories having the same ownership and in part with factories or plants, which are independently owned. In the midst of all these complexities, it may be difficult to discover the real thread of unity." It was held that the factory situated in different places and having separate licences but same registered office, activities, Managing Director vis-à-vis Manager and Secretary empowered to operate Bank Account of both and Balance Sheet, Income and Expenditure Account common to both would be as treated as part of the same establishment. To decide whether different units are part of the same establishment, the Court has to assess the extent of functional integrity between them and also whether one unit can exist conveniently and reasonably without the other. Noor Niwas Nursery Public School vs. Regional Provident Commissioner, 2001(1) SCC 1}. An establis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
