The Court reaffirmed that a distinct entity under the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act is entitled to exemptions, emphasizing the need for procedural fairness in tribunal hearings.

JUDGMENT :

Shampa Dutt (Paul), J.

1. The writ application has been preferred challenging an order dated 30^th September, 2014 passed by the Employees’ Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in A.T.A. No. 497(15)2004.

2. The petitioner’s case is that on and from September, 1998, the petitioner had started depositing the Provident Fund contributions in the sub code number and had also deposited the arrear contributions from 1^st April, 1997 in September, 1998 in one go, although the purported sub code number was allotted to the petitioner's establishment only in April, 1998, where it was noted as follows:-

“2. As prayed for a Sub Code No.WB/CA/417A is allotted to your establishment for your administrative convenience and to tacilitate as arate compliance in respect of your unit at 32, Ram Krishna Samadhi Rd-Cal-54 without prejudice to the average of your establishment under Code No. WB/ 417 and as such for the purpose of employees provident fund & Miscellaneous provisions Act 1952 and the scheme framed thereunder, the unit noted above shall be treated as a part of paracel of the main establishment.”

3. The petitioner vide their letter dated 04.05.98 filed their objection to the said letter dated 07.04.1998, stating as follows :-

“………..The said partnership firm, as will appear from the registered deed, started operating w.e.f. 01-04-94.

The partnership firm is engaged in manufacturing of cold drawn bright steel bars in the shape of squares, flats, rounds, bexagons etc. The workmen of the partners are totally new recruits, engaged in the above process. A list of the workmen recruited on and from 1st April, 1994 is annexure 'P' hereto.

Being a newly set up w.e.f. 1st April, 1994 the partnership firm was eligible for exemption for a period of three years from the date as per Section 16(1)(d) of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (as it was in 1994) till 31st March, 1997.

It is surprising that your memo, as referred to hereinabove, has clubbed our partnership firm with another establishment and a sub code NO. has been given to us being WB/CA/417A. As per your memo referred to above, our establishment has been shown as a part and parcel of the establishment having Code NO. WB/417, which is M/S. Punjab Engineering Works.

Punjab Engineering Works is totally separate establishment engaged in the manufacturing of oil mill machinery and its spares, which has no relationship with M/S. Durga Engineering Works. Initially M/S. Punjab Engineering Works was a partnership firm with Mr. Satish Kumar Gupta and Mr. Bimal Kumar Gupta as partners. The latter is one of the Partners of M/S. Durga Engineering Works. Mr. Bimal Kumar Gupta disassociated himself from M/S. Punjab Engineering Works and surrendered as a partner and relinquished all his rights in M/S. Punjab Engineering Works and there was a deed of settlement entered by and between Sri Bimal Kumar Gupta and Sri Satish Kumar Gupta by which Sri Bimal kumar Gupta was a retiring partner of Punjab Engineering Works. Presently, Punjab Engineering Works has its factory and workshop at Vill: Nandankanan, Post: Ganganagar, Dist.: 24 Pg.(N). The factory licenses, excise registrations, ESI registration Nos. West Bengal Sales Tax and Central Sales Tax Nos. of the two firms, namely M/S. Durga Engineering Works and M/S. Punjab Engineering Works are totally different and the partners are also totally different. As such M/S. Durga Engineering Works under no stretch or imagination can be clubbed with M/S. Punjab Engineering Works. The ownership of the two firms are totally different and distinct. The Profit & Loss Accounts are totally different, which we crave leave to refer, if necessary. The Works Manager and Production Supervisor are totally different and there is no supervisory control of either of M/S. Durga Engineering Works and M/S. Punjab Engineering Works on the other………….”

4. In February, 1999, the respondent authorities initiated a proceeding under Section 7A of the said A