VINAYAKA ENGINEERING WORKS PLOT NO. 254, INDUSTRIAL AREA BAIKAMPADY NEW MANGALORE -575011 DAKSHINA KANNADA REP. BY ITS PARTNER SRI SUDHAKAR BALIGA S/O. LATE SRI. GOVINDARAYA BALIGA, SRI N. ARUN PADIYAR S/O. LATE SRI SRINIVASA PADIYAR Vs. THE REG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TWO employers aggrieved by the order under Section 7 -A of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, covering the establishments under the Act and the determination of contributions due by order dated 31.8.2006/1.9.2006, Annexure -C, carried the same in two appeals i.e., ATA Nos.672(6)2006 and 673(6)2006 before the Employees' Provident Fund Appellant Tribunal, New Delhi, whence the appeals were dismissed by orders of even date 7.2.2011, Annexures -E and F. Hence, these petitions.

(2.) PETITIONS are opposed by filing statement of objections dated 23.8.2011 interalia contending that the Squad of Officers inspected the establishments, found the employment strength to be more than 22, having taken a head count, following which, a mahazar was drawn and after extending reasonable opportunity of hearing to the employers, since there is unity of management, control and ownership, though the two units are situated adjacent to each other, within geographical proximity, undertaking similar activity, were clubbed together as one unit. The orders impugned, it is stated are well merited, fully justified and do not call for interference.

(3.) YET again at paragraph 5 of the said order, the Authority recorded the submission of one Sri M. Veeramalia, Enforcement Officer appearing for the Department, stating that on several inspections and verification of both establishments and books of account, it was found that both the establishments were separate partnership firms, allotted separate sites by the KIADB, maintained separate accountants and that there was no transfer of employees, while the Control and Finance was also separate, including Sundry Debtors and Sundry Creditors.