USHA TEXTILES Vs. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is filed to quash the order dated June 3, 1981 (annexure P-16), issued by the second respondent.

(2.) THE petitioner is a registered partnership firm. One of the partners, namely, Kamal Dalmia, purchased a building situated at Kashmir Road, Verka, District Amritsar, and partitioned the said premises into four separate sheds and in May, 1976, he wrote four separate lease deeds, namely, to Suman Textiles, Amritsar, and B. S. Enterprises, Amritsar, Bhagirath Textiles, Amritsar, and N. R. Textiles, Amritsar, and regular lease deeds were also executed on February 2, 1977. Power looms were installed in each one of the three sheds and the shed leased ton. R. Textiles, Amritsar, comprised the building as well as the machinery which had been installed, namely, firn winding machine, warping machine and twisting machine. The Textiles Commissioner, Bombay, under the provisions of the Textile (Production by Power Looms) Control Order, 1956, granted permits in the name of Suman Textiles of Amritsar for nine power looms, Bhushan Kumar for nine power looms and Bhagirath Textiles, Amritsar, for eight power looms. On February 21, 1978, the Factory Inspector and the Provident Fund Inspector visited the factory premises separately and the Chief Inspector of Factories directed to register the petitioner-concern saying that the employees strength was more than ten and to that a suitable reply was given. The Provident Fund Inspector, by his letter dated January 7, 1977, directed the petitioner-concern to produce the accounts saying that the strength of the, employees of the petitioner-concern was 31. Suitable replies were given that the units were separate and independent unit and one has nothing to do with the other. Thereafter, the second respondent held an enquiry and by his order dated June 3, 1981, held that the petitioner establishment was covered under the provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, and directed the petitioner to pay the contribution. Challenging the said order, the petitioner filed the above writ petition.

(3.) THERE is no dispute that the property was purchased in the name of Usha Textiles, Amritsar, and for the purpose of business the said Usha Textiles divided the property into four units and leased out the same to the firms, namely, Suman Textiles, Amritsar, B. S. Enterprises, Amritsar, Bhagirath Textiles, Amritsar, and N. R. Textiles, Amritsar, vide lease deed annexure P-1. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, all the four units are separate and have nothing to do with Usha Textiles. In all the four lease deeds the terms and conditions are the same. It is pertinent to reproduce the clauses in all these four lease deeds. Clause 1 reads as follows :