PIEM HOTELS LTD Vs. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner No. 1 is a Company incorporated on 13-3-1968 registered under Companies Act. It runs a hotel at Cuffe Parade known as President Hotel. The Taj President Hotel has been registered with the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and has been allotted a Code number for the purposes of payment of provident fund contributions. Petitioner No. 1 set up a new 3 star hotel at Nasik in 1996 namely petitioner No. 2. This hotel was run with a separate identity according to the petitioners. Petitioner No. 2 issued its first invoice on 20-3-1996 i.e. the date on which it was established. It was placed on the approved list of the Department of Tourism on 21-1-1997. It obtained a licence to deal with foreign currency on 7-6-1996. Petitioner No. 2 was registered under The Bombay Shops and Establishments Act 1948 w.e.f. 28-6-1996. The Health Department also issued a separate licence to this Hotel on 18-3-1996. A separate registration for the purposes of Sales Tax was obtained on 17-4-1996. Besides this, a certificate of registration was issued by the Inspector of Weights and Measures on 27-12-1998.

(2.) The Taj Residency i.e. Petitioner No. 2 sought infancy benefit since it was a newly set up established and could avail of such benefit under section 16 of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act. According to the petitioners, the Taj Residency was entitled to infancy benefit upto 19-3-1999 in view of the provisions of section 16(l)(d) of the EPF Act. However, the petitioners decided to have voluntary coverage of the Act and claimed the infancy benefit only upto 21-9-1997.

(3.) On 6-10-1997, a communication was issued from the RPFC, Nasik allotting a separate code number to the Taj Residency. However, the petitioners were informed that the Taj Residency would be treated as a branch of main establishment.