Entities can be treated as one under the EPF Act based on unity of management, finance, and purpose, regardless of separate registration.

JUDGMENT :

K.V. VISWANATHAN, J.

1. The present appeal arises out of a judgment and order of the Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore dated 22.04.2016 in Writ Petition No. 2503 of 2011. By the said judgment and order, the High Court dismissed the writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India filed by the appellant-herein and upheld the order of the Employees’ Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, (for short ‘the Appellate Tribunal’) New Delhi dated 24.01.2011 which order had, in turn, upheld the order dated 17.02.2006 passed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, (for short ‘APFC’) Indore. The APFC had held that the appellant was part and parcel of M/s Vindas Chemical Industries Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘Vindas’) - the third respondent herein for the purpose of applicability of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short the ‘EPF Act’) with effect from September, 1995. Appropriate consequential directions to remit the dues were also passed. Aggrieved by the judgment and order of the High Court, the appellant has preferred this appeal, by way of special leave.

BRIEF FACTS:

2. Indisputably, on 22.11.1988, Dr. Darshan Kataria and his brother Niranjan Kataria set up the respondent No. 3-Vindas for manufacturing injections and capsules of certain specified drugs.

2.1 The factory was situated at Plot No. 65, Sector-1, Pithampur, District Dhar, Madhya Pradesh. Vindas was incorporated with the Registrar of Companies, Madhya Pradesh.

2.2 Subsequently, on 05.09.1990, Shri Vasudev Kataria and Smt. Rajni Kataria, wife of Darshan Kataria incorporated the appellant-Company with the Registrar of Companies in the State of Maharashtra. Later it transpires from the record that Mr. Darshan Kataria was also a director in the appellant-Company.

2.3 However, the factory of the appellant was set up and business of production of tablets and later liquid syrups was set up at Plot No. 65/1, Sector-1, Pithampur, Dhar, Madhya Pradesh. It is also undisputed that Vindas was covered under the EPF Act.

2.4 Inspections were carried out at the appellant’s premises on 17/20.01.2005 and a communication was sent on 24.01.2005 to deposit the provident fund contribution and administrative charges w.e.f. 01.04.2004, though it was mentioned that the date was liable to change and a final decision would be taken after the inspection of previous records.

2.5 The appellant, by its reply of 04.02.2005, opposed the applicability of the EPF Act on the ground that the workers/employees did not exceed the prescribed number. It must also be pointed out that in the communication of 20.01.2005, the issue that was highlighted by the Department was about the number of employees exceeding twenty.

2.6 Another inspection was carried out on 28.03.2005 and in the inspection note it was categorically stated that the establishment of the appellant was situated within the premises of Vindas the third respondent and common security was employed for both the establishments and that the Managing Director of Vindas was Dr. Darshan Kataria.

2.7 Thereafter, on 29.04.2005, a summons to appear in person under Section 7 A of the EPF Act was issued to the appellant. Section 7 A empowers the authorities to conduct such enquiry as they may deem necessary and pass orders with regard to disputes about coverage of establishments under the EPF Act. The appellant was asked to produce all the attested copies of the relevant records to determine the amount due for the period April, 2004 to March, 2005.

2.8 The appellant