Section 2-A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, applies only to different departments or branches of one establishment and not to different establishments.

JUDGMENT :

B.P. SARAF, J.

1. These are four writ petitions filed by four partnership firms who have been clubbed together and treated as one establishment by the Regional Provident Funds Commissioner, Bombay, for the purpose of determining the liability under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (the Act), and asked to pay the provident funds dues with effect from 31 January, 1975. A common code number was allotted by the Regional Provident Funds Commissioner, Maharashtra and Goa, being Code No. MH/22043 to one of the firms namely Sunder Transport, the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1199 of 1988 for itself and the other three firms who are petitioners in the other writ petitions. The liability under S. 7 of the Act was determined at Rs. 1,99,087.50 and notice was served on each one of the four firms separately to pay the said amount. The aforesaid demand notices of the Regional Provident Funds Commissioner which are dated 20 February, 1988, and the common order, dated 27 January, 1988, in pursuance of which these demand notices were issued, are the subject matter of challenge.

2. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1199 of 1988 is Sunder Transport. This is a partnership firm. It was registered under the Indian Partnership Act in the year 1964. Act the relevant time, it has been carrying on business of transport of chassis and trucks and products of Bharat Petroleum to Dhule and various other places. It is composed of three partners. The petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1200 of 1988 is Bafna Motors which is also a partnership firm with 4 partners. It holds the dealership of International Tractors and parts thereof. It is also registered as a firm under the Partnership Act. Another firm Bafna Investment, petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1175 of 1988, is also a partnership duly registered under the Indian Partnership Act. It comprises of five partners. Business of the firm consists of letting out of premises on rent and commission agency. Similarly, Bafna Finance is a separate firm registered with the Registrar of Firms. It comprises of four partners. All these four partnership firms are registered as independent firms with the Registrar of firms and are also registered separately under other enactments viz. Bombay Sales Tax Act, Bombay Shops and Establishments Act. All these firms have been carrying on their businesses since the year 1964 and are being separately assessed to income-tax as independent firms. The partners of these firms are not identical though there are some common partners.

3. The respondent, Regional Provident Funds Commissioner, Bombay, served the show-cause notice, dated 10 November, 1983 to the petitioner firms asking them to show cause as to why the provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, should not have been made applicable to them by treating all the four firms as one establishment. The petitioner-firms showed cause by their letter, dated 27 November, 1983. Their contention was that all of them were different and independent firms and were separate legal entities. None of them employed more than five employees. They were all carrying on their separate businesses having no inter-connection, inter-dependence and integrality of any nature and, therefore, clubbing them together and treating them as one establishment for the purpose of determining the applicability of the Act, was wrong, illegal and incorrect. All the firms filed relevant documents including the account-books and the income-tax assesssment order in support of their contention. In continuation to this letter, another letter, dated 15 November, 1984, was filed explaining why the four firms could not be clubbed together and treated as one establishment. By yet another letter being letter, dated 25 February, 1985, the petitioners drew the pointed attention of the respondent to the fact that there was neither any common supervisory, managerial or financial control by any of th