SYNTEX Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is a factory registered under the factories Act, 1948 and is a unit of M/s. Shree Agencies, a registered partnership firm having its registered office at Calcutta Shree Agencies was started on September 3, 1973 and had established a branch office at kota in the year 1974. Shree Agencies is engaged in the activity of trading in goods prepared of Jute and Hessian cloth at Calcutta. M/s. Shree syntex commenced its production on and from June 24, 1980 and is engaged in the manufacture of H. D. P. E. woven cloth and bags, from H. D. P. E. granuales purchased from M/s. Prolyolifins Industries Limited and" not from M/s. Shree Agencies, Kota. According to the petitioner since m/s. Shree Syntex is an independent manufacturing unit and commenced its production on 24th June, 1980, therefore, it is entitled to infancy benefits under Section 16 of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous provisions Act, for a period of five years but since in February, 1984, the number of employees crossed the limit of 50, infancy benefits were available upto February, 19j84 and since then, the factory is making compliance of the provisions of the Act,s on and from March, 1984. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (hereinafter referred to as the 'commissioner') vide his letter dated March 21, 1984 required that M/s. Shree Syntex Limited factory had come within the purview of the Act w. e. f. March 31, 1983, therefore, it should deposit the provident fund w. e. f. April, 1983 and as such, the petitioner was not entitled to benefit of infancy from April, 1983 to February, 1984. Proceedings u/s. 7-A of the Act were commenced. The Commissioner ultimately after the enquiry prescribed under law passed the impugned order dated March 14, 1988 holding that the factory of Shree Syntex being a branch of M/s. Shree Agencies. Calcutta, is not entitled to fresh infancy benefit u/s, 16 (1) (b) in respect of factory at Kota and that, M/s. Shree syntex should deposit the provident fund for employees employed in all the branches of M/s. Shree Agencies, both at Calcutta and Kota alongewith employees of M/s. Shree Syntex Limited. It is against this order that the present writ petition has been filed. Reply has also been filed on behalf of the respondents. Arguments have been heard. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on The associated Cement Companies Ltd. v. Their Workmen,a. I. R. 1960 S. C. 56. wherein it has been observed as under :

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has also relied on Machinal Singh v. R. P. F. C,1972 Lab. I. C. 1202. wherein a division bench of the Mysore High Court has held that the employer having two or more establishments under his control and having employed less than 20 persons in each of them, would attract no liability to contribute to the provident fund under the Act. Reliance has also been placed on Nate brothers v. R. P. F. C,1977 (35) F. L. R. 80. and also on a division bench judgment of this Court in J. K. Synthetics ltd. v. R. P. F. C,special Appeal No. 231/1984. decided on May 13, 1985. On the other hand, learned counsel for the non petitioners has also placed reliance on The Associated Cement Companies Ltd. (supra) wherein principles have been laid down regarding one establishment.

(3.) HE has also placed reliance on Regional Provident Fund Commissioner v. S. K. M. Manufacturing Company,a. I. R. 1962 S. C. 1536. wherein their lordships have considered the interpretation of Section l (3) (ia) of the Act as to the applicability of Section 16. Reliance has also been placed on Associated industries Pvt. Ltd. v. R. P. F. C,1966 (13) F. L. R. 80. R- Ramakrishna Rao v. State of kerala1969 (19) F. L. R. 246 (S. C ). regarding the scope of Section 16 (1) (b) of the Act. Learned counsel for the respondents has further placed reliance on Union of India v- Glass Worfcs,1972 (24) F. L. R. 56. He has also relied on the Explanation in Section 2-A.