ALAGU PHARMACY B Vs. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above writ petition has been filed praying to issue a writ of certiorari, to call for the records on the file of the second respondent pertaining to his order bearing Ref. No. C7/tn/cbe/28841/enf/cbe. VII/96 dated 30. 12. 96 as confirmed by the order of the second respondent bearing Ref. No. C7c7/tn/cbe/28841/enf/cbe. VII/97 dated 30. 4. 97 and quash the same.

(2.) TODAY, when the above matter was taken up for consideration, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner, which is a proprietrix concern, was started on 14. 4. 1991; that there are two other concerns known as Alagu Pharmacy and Alagu Pharmacy (C), with which, the proprietrix of the petitioner is in no way connected; that all the three establishments are distinct and different, though the other two concerns are owned by the petitioner's husband and son along with two others; that at no point of time, the petitioner-concern employed 20 persons, so as to attract the provisions of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"); that the second respondent, after calling for the relevant records and after considering the representation made by the petitioner-concern, has passed orders on 31. 12. 1996, holding that all the three concerns are part of the same establishment and as such, the provisions of the Provident Fund Act would apply to the petitioner-concern; that the petitioner made further representation, placing materials to show that all the three concerns are distinct and different, having no connection with the petitioner, but the second respondent passed orders on 30. 4. 1997, confirming the earlier order passed by him on 30. 12. 1996 and hence would seek for the relief extracted supra.

(3.) IN support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision reported in DEVESH SANDEEP ASSOCIATES and OTHERS vs. R. P. F. COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE (1997 (I) L. L. J. 1167), particularly in paragraph 12, it is held: