KUNJ Vs. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The two petitioners, who vide order dated 20th September, 1999 of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner have been clubbed together for the purpose of application of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and whose appeals to the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal have been dismissed vide order dated 31st March, 2000, have aggrieved therefrom, preferred these petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. This Court while issuing notice of the petitions, vide ex parte orders of the year 2000 stayed the demands consequently made against the petitioners. The said orders remain in force.

(2.) This Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot reopen/reappreciate the factual position. However, the same does not admit of any controversy in the present case. This Court is thus only concerned with the conclusion, though concurrently arrived at by the two foras below from the said admitted facts.

(3.) The two petitioners are independent entities and it has not been held by either of the foras below that there is any relationship between the two. While the petitioner M/s Roop Sarees Extension (Roop) is a partnership firm of the members of the family of Rastogis; the petitioner M/s Kunj & Company (Kunj) is a sole proprietary of M/s Karuna Raj Vadera. While Roop is engaged inter alia in the business as wholesalers and retailers of sarees and wedding lehengas; Kunj is the owner of prime commercial showroom space at E-24, NDSE, Part-II, New Delhi and had been carrying on business therein of sale of women's salwar kameej, children's wear and shawls. The two came together for mutual commercial benefit.