INDIA PISTONS LIMITED Vs. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WRIT Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order of the learned single Judge of this court dated 14.03.2006 made in W.P.No.5205 of 1999.V. Dhanapalan, J.The challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of the learned Single Judge, passed in W.P.No.5209 of 1999, whereby, the writ petition was allowed holding that the two Units of M/s.India Pistons Ltd., one at Sembium and another at Maraimalai Nagar constitute one integrated whole for the purpose of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, and therefore, the appellant is not entitled to claim "infancy protection" under Section 16(1)(d) of the Act and in the consequences, the appellant is bound to comply with the provisions of the said Act from the date of its establishment i.e., January 1987.

(2.) THE facts which are relevant for consideration of this appeal are set out hereunder:-THE appellant herein, namely, M/s.India Pistons Ltd., is one of the group companies of M/s.Simpsons Group of Companies. THE appellant-company established its factory at Sembium in the year 1960 and it started another Unit at Maraimalai Nagar in the year 1987. THE appellant/M/s.India Pistons Limited is a "Factory" covered under the provisions of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Funds Act, 1952, hereinafter referred to as the "Act". THE main activities of the appellant is the manufacture of Engine Valve Pistons required in the motor vehicle industry. THE appellant applied to the competent authority prescribed under the Act, and made a request for allotment of a separate Code Number for its new Unit at Maramalai Nagar in the year 1990 on the ground that it is totally a different legal entity and hence entitled to the "infancy protection" under Section 16(1)(d) of the Act. THE first respondent/Regional Provident Commissioner, Chennai, by his departmental proceedings dated 23.6.1998 passed an order holding that the appellant-Unit is a part and parcel of the main Unit at Sembium as both the units constitute one integrated whole for the purpose of the Act and therefore it is not entitled for the "infancy protection" under Section 16(1)(d) of the Act and that therefore it shall comply with the provisions of the Act from January, 1987 under the Sub Code allotted to it. Aggrieved of the same, the appellant raised a dispute under Section 7-A of the Act before the second respondent/Employees Provident Funds Appellate Tribunal, for determining the question of granting "infancy protection". By order dated 24.11.1998, the second respondent/Appellate Tribunal set aside the order of the first respondent/Regional Provident Commissioner and allowed the appeal holding that the Appellant/Maramalai Nagar Unit is a new Unit and it should be treated as an independent Unit and not as an integral part of the Sembium Unit, nor as a part of a main Unit and thus the new Unit is entitled for "infancy protection" under Section 16(1)(d) of the Act. Against which, the first respondent-Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Chennai, has filed the Writ Petition challenging the order of the Employees Provident Funds Appellate Tribunal which was allowed by this Court setting aside the order of the Appellate Tribunal and this Court held that the two Units of India Pistons Ltd., one at Sembium and another at Maraimalai Nagar constitute one integrated whole for the purpose of the provisions of the Act and the hence the new Unit at Maraimalai Nagar is not entitled to claim "infancy protection". Challenging the above order of this court, this Writ Appeal has been preferred.

(3.) PER contra, learned counsel for the respondents would contend that the appellant's Factory at Sembium and its new Unit at Maraimalai Nagar manufacture the same products, namely pistons, whether it is for heavy vehicles or for light vehicles meant either for the high speed fuel efficiency engines in cars or light commercial vehicles or two wheelers, the manufacture of pistons is the basic product and both the Units are manufacturing the very same products and they cater to the needs of different segments of the automobile industry. Further, common ownership of the establishments is very well accepted and that even though the factories maintain separate accounts, the accounts merged as a single balance sheet for the preparation of Annual Report and that there is a financial integrality and interdependency between the two Units, and therefore the appellant is not entitled for "infancy protection" due to the existence of interdependency and unity of management and also the manufacture of pistons which is the very same product. Merely because the Unit at Maraimalai Nagar is having a separate Registration and Code Number, it cannot give advantage to the appellant for deciding the question of entitlement of "Infancy protection'. Therefore, the leaned Single Judge has well considered the purpose of the Act contemplated under Section 16(1)(d) of the Act and there is no infirmity in the order of the leaned Single Judge and prays that this Appeal be dismissed.