REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER Vs. EPF APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of order dated 23rd July, 2003 passed by Employees' provident Fund Appellate Tribunal.

(2.) BRIEFLY the facts are that vide an order dated 3rd april, 2001 under section 7a of E. P. F. Act and M. P. Act, 1957, the petitioner covered M/s Golden masala Company under EPF Act by clubbing six employees of firm M/s Molu Ram Suraj Mal. [m/s molu Ram Suraj Mal was doing work of grinding of spices (masalas) exclusively for Golden Masala company] on the ground that Golden Masala company and M/s Molu Ram Suraj Mal were inter dependent on each other and in absence of one, the other will not exist. Petitioners' logic is that while m/s Golden Masala company was engaged in business of sales of spices, M/s Molu Ram Suraj Mal used to grind masalas exclusively for M/s Golden masala Company. It was not doing grinding work for any other establishment. They were nothing but contractors of M/s Golden Masala Company and hence their employees must be treated as employees of Golden Masala Company.

(3.) AN appeal against this order was preferred by m/s Molu Ram Suraj Ma ). The appellate Tribunal held that M/s Golden Masala Company and M/s molu Ram Suraj Mal were two different entities. To prove this the appellant filed different IT. assessment orders for the disputed period. No evidence was furnished by the petitioner to counter this. The tribunal held that the appellant was not a branch of m/s Golden Masala Company or a department of it and, therefore, two companies could not be stated to be integral part of each other.