1. The petitioner challenges the clubbing effected under Section 2A of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short the EPF & MP Act), of two establishments; one a partnership firm and the other a proprietorship concern. The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner had, by Ext.P16 directed clubbing of the two establishments, which order stands upheld by Ext.P26 order of the 1st respondent Appellate Tribunal.

2. The establishments which were clubbed are M/s George Sons & Company and Kaduvangal Engineering Industry, respectively a partnership and a proprietorship concern. The Managing Partner of the partnership firm, which is the petitioner herein, is the proprietor of the other concern.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner on the basis of documents produced as Exts.P1 to P13 would urge that the two concerns are two different establishments having separate legal entity and there could be no functional or financial integration found on the facts disclosed. The learned counsel for the petitioner would rely on Pratap Press v. Workmen [AIR (1960) SC 1213], Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and another v. Dharamsi Morarji Chemical Company Ltd. [(1998)2 SCC 446] and Regional Provident Fund Commissioner v. Raj's Continental Exports (P) Ltd. [(2007) 4 SCC 239], to buttress his contentions.

4. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Organisation however, would stress on the functional integrality found by the original authority under Ext.P16. The learned counsel also would invite this Court to look into the counter affidavit. It is urged that the appellate authority has found such integrality between the functioning of the two establishments clearly indicating that they are one and the same, despite it being projected as different establishments. The workmen, employed in both the establishments are stated to be commonly employed in the establishments and is beyond the minimum number of 20, which enables coverage under the EPF&MP Act, on the basis of clubbing of two establishments effected under Section 2A. The learned Standing Counsel would rely on Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Jaipur v. Naraini Udyog and others [(1996) 5 SCC 522], Eddy Current Controls (India) v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner [(1994) 1 LLJ 522 Ker] to sustain the orders of the authority.

5. That the two establishments have the identical person, in the status of the Managing Partner and Proprietor, stands undisputed. Ext.P1 is the partnership deed, by which the Managing Partner, his wife and his son constituted themselves into a partnership to carry on the business, dealing in sanitary wares, paints, cements etc., under the name and style of M/s. George Sons and Company; the petitioner herein. Ext.P2 is the registration of the said company under the Kerala Shops and Commercial Establishments Act, 1961 and Ext.P3 is the licence obtained from the Local Self Government Institution. Ext.P4 is the electricity bill evidencing power connection drawn to the petitioner firm. Exts.P5 and P6 are registration obtained by the petitioner under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 and Kerala Value Added Tax Act, 2003. The register maintained in the petitioner company, the extract of which is produced at Ext.P7 indicates that eight employees were paid wages in September 2007.

6. Ext.P8 is the power connection obtained in the name of the proprietor of Kaduvangal Engineering Industries, which is a small scale industrial unit registered as such by Ext.P13; engaged in body building of automobiles, steel fabrication and manufacture of wooden and steel furniture. A separate registration has been obtained for the said SSI unit under the KVAT and CST Act, as is evidenced by Exts.P10 and P11 as also a licence from the Local Self Government Institution evidenced at Ext.P9.

7. An inspection was conducted on 25.09.2007 by the officers of the respondent Organisation, at the premises of the petitioner and a report prepared. The same is pr