JUDGMENT - Dr. PRATIBHA UPASANI, J.:---Both these appeals are directed against the common judgment and order dated 10th April, 1994 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in the above mentioned writ petitions.

2.The above mentioned writ petitions were filed by M/s. Niton Industries, a partnership firm registered under the provisions of the Indian Partnership Act, being aggrieved by the order passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Maharashtra and Goa dated 23rd September, 1992, in the matter of proceedings under section 7-A of the Employee's Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 ("the Act"), against Inventa Valve Industries (Bombay) Private Limited, MH/21449.

3.To understand the controversy in the matter, few facts are required to be stated, which are as follows:

Inventa Valve Industries (Bombay) Private Limited (respondent No. 3) was a covered establishment under the Act, under Code No.MH/21449. The Department had sought compliance from the establishment, namely, Inventa Valve Industries (Bombay) Private Limited in respect of one M/s. Nitor Industrial Corporation (petitioner in Writ Petition No. 918 of 1993) and M/s. Nitor Industries (petitioner in Writ Petition No. 2781 of 1992), treating them as part and parcel of the establishment and sub-code Nos. MH/21449-B and MH/21449-A were allotted to them respectively for implementation with effect from 30th June, 1981.

4.The establishment disputed the coverage of M/s. Niton Industrial Corporation and M/s. Niton Industries, as an integral part of it, and thus, the proceedings under section 7-A of the Act were initiated vide Notice dated 28th October, 1988 for resolving the issue of coverage. All the above mentioned establishments were impleaded as a party, who also filed their detailed submissions in these proceedings.

5.The establishment namely, Inventa Valves Industries (Bombay) Private Limited, who are respondent No. 3 in both the writ petitions, by their letter dated 15th December, 1988 contended that it was an independent Private Limited Company, having no contacts with M/s. Niton Industries and M/s. Niton Industrial Corporation, and that, they were not branches or department of it.

6.M/s. Niton Industrial Corporation (petitioner in Writ Petition No. 918 of 1993) vide its submission dated 12th April, 1989 also repudiated coverage on the grounds that---

(1) It was an independent separate entity, established in the year 1981.

(2) It was engaged in the manufacture and sale of industrial valves.

(3) It was a partnership firm, independent of the covered establishment Inventa Valves Industries (Bombay) Private Limited, which was a company registered under the Indian Companies Act and was established in the year 1973.

(4) It was registered separately under the various State/Central Statutes.

(5) It was separately assessed under the Income-Tax Act.

(6) There was no unity of management or control of finance of common supervision between the establishments.

(7) There were no common employees for the establishments and the existence of one does not depend on the existence of the other.

7.Giving these reasons, M/s. Niton Industrial Corporation claimed that it was entitled to independent coverage under the Act.

8.M/s. Niton Industries, who are petitioners in Writ Petition No. 2781 of 1992, also filed written submissions and contended that they were entitled to independent coverage under the Act, giving following grounds--

(1) It was a registered partnership firm, independent of the establishment, and had started functioning from 1978.

(2) It was registered separately under the different State/Central Acts and that, it was also assessed separately under the Income-Tax Act.

(3) There was no common management or control of the finance of common supervision between the establishments and there was separate set of workmen.

(4) Its employment strength exceeded 20 in the month of January, 1988.

9.M/s. Niton Industrial Corporation and M/s. Niton Industries both filed copies

Click Here to Read the rest of this document