The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of S.2A of the Provident Funds Act in determining whether one establishment is a branch of another.

Krishnamoorthy, J.

Petitioner is a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at Eddypuram, Chalakudy in Trichur District. It is engaged in the business of manufacture of eddy current clutches and motors. Petitioner-Company owns and maintains two factories, one at Chalakudy in Kerala and the other at Coimbatore in the State of Tamil Nadu. The factory at Chalakudy was established in the year 1974 and the factory at Coimbatore was established in 1979. According to the petitioner, these two factories are established and registered separately and independently under the Factories Act and they are having separate registration and licences under the Central Excise Act and the Sales Tax Acts of the respective Slates. Separate accounts are maintained in regard to the factories and balance-sheets are also prepared separately. The installed capacity of the Chalakudy factory is 500 HP and that of the Coimbatore factory is only 32.35 HP. The employees of the two factories are not mutually transferable. The factory at Coimbatore is having only 16 employees.

2. The employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Provident Funds act) was made applicable to the factory at Chalakudy with effect from 31-12-1976, under S. 1(3)(a) of the said Act. It is applicable only to the factory owned by the petitioner and not to the petitioner-Company as such. The petitioner-company was informed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, in July, 1980 that the factory at Coimbatore is a branch unit of the Company and is liable to pay provident fund contribution under the Provident Funds Act, by virtue of S.2A of the said Act; copy of that letter is produced as Ext. P3. To Ext. P3 the petitioner submitted a detailed objection evidenced by Ext. P4 dated 26-7-1980. By his order dated 20-8-1982, produced as Ext. P5, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (1st respondent) rejected the objections of the petitioned and directed the petitioner to implement the provisions of the Act and the Scheme in respect of the Coimbatore factory with effect from the date of starling of the factory.

3. Aggrieved by the said order the petitioner filed a representation before the 2nd respondent under S.19A of the Provident Funds Act; the representation is produce-has Ext. P6. The 2nd respondent confirmed the order of the 1st respondent by Ext. P7 order dated 17-11-1982 holding that the Coimbatore factory is only a branch of the Chalakudy establishment and that the petitioner is liable to contribute to the Fund in respect of both the factories.

4. Petitioner is challenging Exts. P5 and P7 orders as illegal and vitiated by an error of law. It is contended that the Coimbatore factory should be considered as a factory established separate and independent of the Chalakudy factory and since the coimbatore factory does not employ 20 or more persons, it is not liable to be covered under the Act. It is further contended that S.2A of the Provident Funds Act has no application to the petitioner's factories or the factory at Coimbatore is not a branch or department of the Chalakudy factory, as defined in S.2Aof the Act. Petitioner further contends that the fact that the two factories are owned by the petitioner by itself will not make one factory a branch or department of the other so as to come within the purview of S.2A of the Provident Funds Act. According to the petitioner, the respondents have -> misconstrued and misunderstood the provisions of S.2A and have erroneously applied that Section in holding that the Coimbatore factory is a branch of the Chalakudy factory. The fact that the two factories are separately registered and have separate licences and that there is no interdependence between the two establishments is relevant for determining whether one is a branch of the other. On these grounds the petitioner prays for quashing Exts. P5 and P7 orders and to declare that the factory at Coi