KAKAS RESTAURANT Vs. K L SEHGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the order passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Delhi on 18.5.1983 under Section 7-A of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. By the aforesaid order the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner had held that both the units,namely, Kaka Da Hotel and Kaka Restaurant constitute one establishment. In the present petition the petitioner has prayed for setting aside and quashing the aforesaid impugned order.

(2.) The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner in the aforesaid impugned order has recorded various contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner as also on behalf of the Department. After appreciating the evidence on record, it was held by him that the nature of business of both the Kaka Da Hotel and Kaka Restaurant is common and both belong to one family and that the business of Kaka Restaurant was, in fact, expansion of business of Kaka Da Hotel. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner also referred to the various tests laid down by the Supreme Court to determine as to what would constitute one establishment in the case of Associated Cement Co.Ltd. vs. Its Own Workmen, reported in AIR 1960 SC 56 and also in the case of M/s.Pratap Press vs. Its Own Workmen reported in AIR 1960 SC 1213. Upon appreciation of the evidence on record, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner came to the conclusion that there is unity of ownership, unity of management, supervision and control, general unity of purpose and accordingly held that there is justification in treating the Kaka Restaurant as branch department of Kaka Da Hotel. The aforesaid findings and conclusion are challenged by the petitioner by filing the aforesaid writ petition.

(3.) During the course of his submission, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that there is violation of the principles of natural justice in conducting the enquiry under Section 7-A of the Act inasmuch as the report submitted by the Inspector was not given to the petitioner. In support of the aforesaid contention, the counsel relied upon the decision of this Court in "GLAMOURS" - PROPRIETORS SETH HASSARAM AND SONS (INDIA) PVT.LTD. VS. THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISISONER reported in 1975 LAB I.C.954, which was upheld by the Division Bench in REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, NEW DELHI VS. GLAMOUR - PROPRIETOR SETH HASSARAM AND SONS (INDIA) PVT. LTD. reported in 1982 LAB. I.C. 1787.