SUMITRA NURSING Vs. EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Three establishments, namely, M/s Sumitra Nursing Home, Dr. Neeraj Gupta Orthopedic Centre and Kumar Diagnostic Centre are existing and functioning in one premises at Bijnor. It transpires, that an inspection was made in the premises on 25.6.l997 by the Regional Provident Fund authority and found that 22 persons were working in the said premises. Accordingly, a notice dated 2.7.1997 was issued to show cause as to why an order should not be passed holding that the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') is applicable on the said establishment and that the petitioner should pay the contribution as per the provisions of the Act. It further transpires, that based on the inspection note, an exparte assessment order dated 12.1.1998 was issued under Section 7-A of the Act. The petitioner, upon getting knowledge of the said exparte order, filed an application dated 12.2.1998 for recalling the said order contending that the proceedings were wrongly initiated, inasmuch as, less than twenty persons were employed in the petitioner establishment. Based on the said application, a fresh inspection was made and it transpires that a fresh report was submitted by the authorities again indicating that there were more 20 employees employed in the premises. The petitioner objected to the said report contending that there exist three different establishments in the premises and all the three establishment cannot be clubbed together treating it as one unit. The objection of the petitioner was not considered and the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner passed an order dated 30.11.2000 holding that the three establishments are part of one and the same establishment and consequently, the provisions of the Act of 1952 was applicable. The petitioner, being aggrieved, filed an appeal, which was dismissed by an order dated 9.5.2005. The petitioner thereafter preferred Writ Petition No.60226 of 2005, which was allowed by a judgment dated 16.9.2005 and the matter was remitted again to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner to redecide the matter in the light of the observations made by the Court.

(2.) The writ court, while quashing the order of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and the appellate authority, held-

(3.) The Court held, that the authority was obliged to address and give a finding on the two questions, namely, functional integrality between the three units and in the matter of finance and employment, the authorities had kept the three units separate and distinct.