A GANGADHARAN Vs. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE second respondent, herein is a firm carrying on the business of publication of two medical journals " Antiseptic " and " Health ", at No. 323-24, Thambu Chetty Street, G. T. Madras-1, from the year 1904. It is also running a printing press under the name of Antiseptic Press at No. 10, Thambu Chetty Street, G. T. , Madras-1, which was established in the year 1932. The printing press has been brought under the scope of the Employees' Provident Funds and Family Pension Fund Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) from the year 1961. The petitioner herein who is a clerk employed in connection with the publication of the two medical journals at No. 323-24, Thambu Chetty Street, G. T. Madras-1, sought the extension of the provisions of the said Act to the said office at No. 323-24, Thambu Chetty Street, G. T. Madras-1 on the ground that both the printing press and the administrative office are integrated and inseparable units. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Madras, by his letter dated 19th February, 1964 called upon the second respondent to implement the provisions of the Act with effect from 1st February, 1964 to persons employed in the said office. Aggrieved against that the second respondent, however, made a representation to the first respondent under Section 19a of the A. Gangadharan vs. Government of India, represented by the Under Secretary, Departme. . . Page 2 of 9 Employees' Provident Fund Act. The first respondent without affording any opportunity to the employees working in No. 323-24, Thambu Chetty Street, G. T. Madras-1, passed an order treating the press and administrative office as two separate units. The employees of the second respondent filed W. P. No. 603 of 1966 in this Court. This Court allowed at the same and directed the first respondent to dispose of the application of the second respondent under Section 19a afresh after hearing the employees. After hearing the parties, the first respondent by its cryptic order dated 11th September, 1969 held that the printing press and the publishing house of the second respondent should not be treated as one and that as such the Employees' Provident Funds Act was not applicable to the staff working in the administrative office. Thereafter, the employees filed W. P. No. 1023 of 1970 challenging the said decision of the first respondent The said writ, petition was allowed and the matter was remitted to the first respondent, for passing a speaking and reasoned order. The first respondent thereafter passed an order dated 15th September. 1972 holding that the office establishment and the printing press of the second respondent are two separate establishments and that the office establishment is not liable to be covered by the Act. The said decision of the first respondent dated 15th September, 1972 has been challenged in this writ petition by the petitioner.

(2.) THE petitioner states that both the establishments, viz. , the printing press as well as the office establishment are owned by the second respondent, that the office establishment looks after the printing, publication and circulation of the aforesaid two journals, that the accounts relating to the printing press and the publication of the two journals are maintained by the office establishment, that the entire work relating to the printing, publication and circulation of the two medical journals are attended to by it, that the salaries of the employees working both in the printing press and office establishment are paid from out of the subscription and advertisement revenue realised by the office establishment, that the second respondent maintains and prepares only one common balance-sheet and profit and loss account for both the establishments and that the printing press cannot be run without the office establishment and vice versa. In view of the above factors, it is contended that both the establishments, viz. , the printing press and the office establishment should be taken as one integrated unit for the purpose of the application of the Act.

(3.) THIS claim of the petitioner is opposed by the second respondent-management on the ground that the printing of the medical journals and the editorial and publication work connected therewith are carried on by the two partners on behalf of the firm as two independent and separate establishment, that separate accounts are maintained and separate balance-sheet and profit and loss account have been drawn up, each year, that there is no functional integration of the two establishments and that, in fact, the publication of two magazines have been recognised as separate establishments by various authorities including the incometax authorities. It is also the case of the second respondent that the workers in the printing press at No. 10, Thambu Chetty Street, G. T. Madras-1, and the employees of the publication department at No. 323-24, Thambu Chetty Street, G. T. Madras, have all along been represented by two separate units, that separate and independent settlements have been entered into by the management with the workers in the printing press and the employees in the office establishment, that the pay scales are different in the two establishments and that, therefore, the two establishments have to be treated independent of each other.