N. H. BHATT, R. A. MEHTA, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a petition by one company challenging the legality validity and constitutionality of the enquiry conducted by the respondent the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Gujarat State under sec. 75 of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1952 hereinafter referred to as the Act for brevitys sake. The question arose because of the refusal of the respondent to accord to the petitioner-company the infancy benefit under sec. 16 (1) (b) of the said Act.

( 2 ) IN order to understand the controversy a few facts are required to be closely noted. The petitioner is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act. Initially it bore the name Sardesai Brothers Limited which was ultimately changed to the present name Gujchem Distillers India Ltd. The petitioner has its original factory at Billimora in Valsad District and that factory we were told at the Bar had been started somewhere in the year 1939. The said company has been manufacturing Rectified Spirit at Billimora and many other products are also there manufactured by them. In the year 1975 the company decided to establish a new factory at the Industrial Estate Ankleshwar for the purpose of manufacturing Acetic Acid. For that purpose this company obtained loans from various banking and financing public institutions which loans were earmarked only for that new unit or set established there at Ankleshwar which is about 150 Kms. . away from Billimora where the old factory continued and still continues to operate. The State Government had granted a cash subsidy of Rs. 15 lac specifically for this new factory. Even income-tax concessions have been granted to this new unit which has got its own staff both labour and managerial to look after its operations there. Both the factories one at Billimora and other at Ankleshwar have got separate independent licences under the Prohibition and Excise Act and the licence granted by the Central Government for the manufacture of Acetic Acid is also separately granted. It is the say of the petitioner that the activities of the two units are totally distinct so much so that Ankleshwar unit manufactures only Acetic Acid whereas Billimora unit manufactures various chemicals including industrial alcohol. It is also proved without any controversy from the other side after the original balance-sheets of the company and separate balance sheets of the two units were physically shown that the account books of the two units are kept separate and distinct and profit and loss accounts are also drawn separately. No doubt at a later stage they are consolidated in a form to be presented to the shareholders of the company and to the registrar of companies and for the purpose of income-tax. There was no transferability of the employees between the two units which maintained independent muster rolls and barring the initial loan-service of a few and far between employees from Billimora whose salary came to be debited to the Ankleshwar unit there was no transfer of any employee even though those employees were there at Ankleshwar for the initial period they were seen thereafter repatriated to the parent unit. Separate agreements had been entered into with different Unions in respect of the two units and even bonus questions of the two units are separately dealt with. It is the petitioners say that thus for all practical purposes the Ankleshwar unit is an independent unit or an establishment and the refusal to extend the benefit under sec. 16 (1) (b) of the Act to the petitioner-company in respect of Ankleshwar unit was an action unjustified at law.

( 3 ) THE matter was heard by us considerably. In the course of the hearing we felt that certain more information was required to be had. We had therefore called upon the petitioner-company to furnish us with the statement of the Rectified Spirit manufactured by the Billimora unit and its consumption both by Billimora unit and also by the Ankle

Click Here to Read the rest of this document