REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER Vs. INDIA PISTONS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition was filed seeking the relief of Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the second respondent relating to the order dated 24-11-1998 passed in Appeal No.ATA-13(84)98 and quash the said order dated 24-11-1998.

(2.) M/s. India Piston Limited is part of M/s. Simpson Group of Companies. The main factory of M/s. India Piston Limited is situate at Sembium and in the year 1987 it started another unit at Maramalai Nagar, which is the first respondent in this writ petition. M/s. India Piston Limited is covered under the provisions of the Employees" Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). In the year 1990, the first respondent unit sought for the allotment of separate code number for the purpose of the Act on the ground that it is totally a different legal entity and hence entitled to the infancy protection under Sec.16(d) of the Act. The Department, however, held that the first respondent unit is part and parcel of the main unit at Sembium and that, therefore, it is not entitled to infancy protection. The first respondent raised a dispute under Sec.7A of the Act before the petitioner for determining the question of infancy, who, by order dated 23-6-1998, rejected the claim of the first respondent holding that the two units of India Pistons Limited, one at Sembium and another at Maraimalai Nagar constitute an integrated whole for the purpose of the Act, that the Maraimalai Nagar unit is not entitled to infancy protection under Sec.16(d) of the Act and that the Maraimalai Nagar unit shall comply with the provisions of the Act from January 1987 in the subcode number allotted to them. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, the first respondent preferred an appeal before the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal. The appellate authority, by the impugned order dated 24-11-1998, set aside the order passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and allowed the appeal holding that the new unit at Maraimalai Nagar should be treated as an independent unit and not a part or a branch of the main unit at Sembium and that the new unit is entitled for infancy protection under the Act. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

(3.) IN Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Jaipur V. Naraini Udyog and Others (1996) 5 SCC 522 held as follows: