The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a meaningful opportunity for all parties to present their case and the need for a proper application of relevant legal provisions and consideration of crucial facts by the authority under Section 19-A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952.

Varghese Kalliath, J.

1. Petitioner is a firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act. It carries business in textiles at Kottayam. The firm has started business on March 12, 1960. There is no dispute that the petitioner firm is a registered firm.

2. There are other four firms involved in this case. They are M/s. Parthas Textile, Kayamkulam, M/s. Parthas, Trivandrum, M/s. Parthas Textiles, Nagarcoil and M/s. Parthas Textiles, Alleppey. These are also firms registered under the Partnership Act on July 7, 1975, November 17, 1976, September 1, 1978 and August 17, 1981 respectively.

3. The question involved in this case is whether the four partnership firm mentioned above are branches of the petitioner or not. This question assess importance for the purpose of determining the contribution payable under Section 7-A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, for short, the Act. Petitioner contended that the four firms at Kayamkulam, Trivandrum, Nagercoil and Alleppey are independent firms doing independent business even though some of the partners in these firms are partners in the petitioner-firm. Petitioner also pointed out that in the four firms, apart from some: of the partners in the petitioner-firm, there are other partners also. It was further pointed out that the four firms were treated as independent firms doing independent business for the purpose of registration of the firms under the Income-tax Act and other various enactments, and these firms were assessed separately by the Income-tax Department. They have got permanent account numbers and separate licences and General Sales Tax and Central Sales Tax registration.

4. The second respondent passed an order, of course, after some enquiry that the four firms are really branches of the petitioner-firm and that these four firms will also come under the coverage of the employment provident fund scheme of the petitioner's firm. In arriving at this conclusion, the second respondent has considered some materials. It is said that all the partners are relations and in fact, all these firms are family concerns and in order to avoid the incident of tax and the liability, to pay provident fund under the Act, some methods have been adopted and for showing that the four firms are independent firms, the firms are registered with some of the partners of the petitioner's firms and others. The second; respondent, while taking evidence, heard the representations made by the four firms. It was particularly pointed out that in regard to the firm, Parthas, Nagercoil the Provident Fund Commissioner of Tamil Nadu, accepted that firm as an independent firm doing independent business and made it a firm which will come under the Provident Fund Schemes, not as a branch of the petitioner's firm. The second respondent held that the finding of the Provident Fund Commissioner of Tamil Nadu is not binding on him and that he can make independent enquiry in the matter and it was also found that the full facts were not disclosed before the Provident Fund Commissioner, Tamil Nadu. Finally, the second respondent passed Ext. P8 order holding that the four firms are only branches of the petitioner's firm.

5. Aggrieved by the order of the second respondent, petitioner filed an application before the first respondent under Section 19-A of the Act. Before the first respondent, the four firms also filed separate representations stating that they are not branches of the petitioner and that they cannot be treated for the purpose of Section 7-A of the Act, as branches of the petitioner-firm. A lengthy order has been passed by the first respondent, adverting to the contentions raised by the petitioner and the answers given by the second respondent. But, the first respondent did not give an opportunity to the four firms which contended that they are not branches of the petitioner-firm. First respondent passed the impugned order Ext. P-20 considering certain aspects of the matter.

6. C