SOMNATH ENTERPRISE Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel, Mr. P. Roy Barman for the petitioner and learned counsel, Mr. A. Lodh for the respondents. It is submitted by learned counsel, Mr. Roy Barman that the petitioner, M/S. Somnath Enterprise is a partnership firm consisting of three partners namely, Shri Mono Mohan Pal, Smt. Dipti Pal and Shri Swarup Kanti Dey and the firm dealing with business of matches, milk powder, electric goods etc. There is another partnership firm namely, M/S. Rakshyakali Industries consisting of two partners namely, Shri Mano Mohan Pal and Shri Amar Pal and that firm dealing with the business of spice products.

(2.) On 21.03.2003, an inspection was carried out in the premises of M/S Rakshyakali Industries by the enforcement officer of the respondents and at that time, the enforcement officer found 10 workers present and working in the premises of M/S Rakshyakali Industries and a list of the employees was prepared. After preparation of list, Amar Pal, the partner of M/S. Rakshyakali Industries was asked to sign the list, but it is alleged that Amar Pal refused to put the signature and thereafter, Swarup Kanti Dey signed the list of employees. Subsequently, a notice was issued to Swarup Kanti Dey, who is a partner of M/S. Somnath Enterprise to appear and file affidavit in respect of his signing the paper while inquiry was conducted in the premises of M/S. Rakshyakali Industries on 21.03.2003. It is further submitted by learned counsel, Mr. Roy Barman that the issue was taken up before the Gauhati High Court, Agartala Bench by filing W.P. (C) No. 204 of 2004 and by order dated 16.09.2004, the writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the Provident Fund Commissioner to re-investigate into the matter relating to the number of employees working in the establishment of the petitioner-firm i.e. M/S. Rakshyakali Industries. The respondents, thereafter, passed the impugned order dated 08.08.2005 (Annexure-I to the writ petition) holding that there is managerial integrity and functional integrity between the two partnership firms i.e. M/S. Somnath Enterprise and M/S. Rakshyakali Industries and passed the order concluding as follows:-

(3.) It is submitted by Mr. Roy Barman, learned counsel of the petitioners that M/S. Somnath Enterprise and M/S. Rakshyakali Industries are two distinct partnership firms and the impugned order has been passed integrating/clubbing together both the partnership firms in respect of its employees without giving any notice to the petitioner-firm and without hearing them. A notice was issued to Swarup Kanti Dey, who is incidentally a partner of M/S. Somnath Enterprise for the reasons that he signed a statement of employees of M/S. Rakshyakali Industries when it was inspected by the enforcement officer of the respondents. Such notice can in no way be said as a notice to M/S. Somnath Enterprise for the purpose of clubbing the said firm with M/S. Rakshyakali Industries. It is, therefore, submitted by learned counsel, Mr. Roy Barman that the petitioners only want that a notice be given to them properly and they should be heard before clubbing them with M/S. Rakshyakali Industries.