PARAMOUNT LEATHERS Vs. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two appeals arise out of a judgment and order, dated October 26, 2009 passed in Paramount Leathers v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and Another (W.P. 1318 (W)/2008) and out of an order of the same date passed in Wu Leathers v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and Another (W.P. 1312 (W)/2008). The learned Trial Judge had dismissed the first writ petition and by a subsequent order His Lordship dismissed the second writ petition also holding that in view of the dismissal of the writ petition filed by Paramount Leathers nothing remained to be done in the second writ petition. The petitioners of the two writ petitions feeling aggrieved have filed two appeals which have been re-numbered as F.M.A. 65/2010 and F.M.A. 66/2010 respectively. Since both these appeals raise the same questions of law they were analogously taken up for hearing and are being disposed of by a common judgment and order.

(2.) PARAMOUNT Leather and Wu Leathers are two partnership firms having their respective offices in Matheswartala Road, Tiljala, Kolkata-16, in close proximity to each other. There is still another similarity between these two partnership firms i.e. both deal in leather and leather products. They have a common part-time employee as an Accountant as well.

(3.) THIS order, as already mentioned, was assailed in two writ petitions by the appellants. The Provident Fund authorities had contested the writ petition by filing an Affidavit-in-Opposition. The learned Trial Judge dismissed the writ petitions on the ground of availability of alternative remedy.