Treatment of office establishment and Printing Press as two different establishment.

Nainar Sundaram, J.

The second respondent in W.P. No. 1972 of 1973 is the appellant in this writ appeal. The first respondent herein is the petitioner and the second respondent herein is the first respondent in the writ petition. For the sake of convenience, we shall refer to the parties as per their appellations in the writ petition. The writ petition was filed to quash the order of the first respondent dated 15th September, 1972 passed under S. 19-A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, hereinafter referred to as the Act, the same bearing the nomenclature of the Employees' Provident Funds and Family Pension Fund Act, 1952 prior to its amendment by Act 99 of 1976. The writ petition came to be filed for the above relief in the following circumstances. The second respondent as a firm was carrying on the business of publication of two medical journals "Antiseptic" and "Health" at premises No. 323-324 Thambu Chetty Street, Madras-1 even from the year 1904, the said establishment shall hereinafter be referred to as the Publication. In 1932, the same firm established a printing press under the name and style of "Antiseptic Press" at No. 10, Thambu Chetty Street, Madras-1 and it shall hereinafter be referred to as the press. There is no difficulty with regard to the Press and it has been brought within the mischief of the Act. Admittedly, there was a move by the concerned employees of the Publication to have the same brought within the mischief of the Act on the ground that both the press and the publication are integrated and inseparable units. Ultimately the matter went before the first respondent and by order dated 29th July, 1965, the first respondent held that the press and the publication are different establishments. This order of the respondent was challenged in W.P. No. 603 of 1966 and this court allowed the writ petition and directed the first respondent examine the matter and dispose of the same after hearing the employees. Once again the first respondent examined the matter and by order dated 11th September, 1969, held that the publication are separate establishments. The matter was again brought to this court in W.P. No. 1023 of 1970 and this court was obliged to quash the said order on the ground that no reasons were expressed and the order was a non-speaking order. The matter again went back to the first respondent and the first respondent passed the present impugned order, addressed to the President of the Antiseptic Employees' Union and the text of the said order runs as follows :

"With reference to your letter dated the 11th August, 1971 on the above subject, I am directed to say that the Central Government, in pursuance of the orders of the High Court of Madras, has carefully considered the entire matter. The representatives of the management and the Employees' Union of M/s Antiseptic, Madras, have also been given a hearing and the Central Government finds that :-

1. M/s Antiseptic, Madras are publishing medical journals, 'Antiseptic' and 'Health'; and in pursuance thereof they have set up their own press. The journals are printed in that press and thereafter published from the office. The press has been covered under the provision of the Employees' Provident Funds and Family Pension Fund Act, 1952 under the head 'printing'.

2. The Press and the office are located in different premises and are registered under different enactments.

3. There are two separate union for the press and the office workers. This has been admitted by Shri Gangadharan, Secretary of the Union.

4. No outside job is undertaken by the press. This fact has also been admitted by Shri Gangadharan, Secretary of the Union. The learned counsel for the Union has also conceded that the firm of M/s Antiseptic is not engaged in printing in general.

5. The mere fact that there might be unity of finance, management and functional integrality between the two units would not result in the coverage of the office also