The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the Tribunal to consider all relevant facts and materials before making a decision under the PF Act, ensuring a fair and thorough assessment of the applicability of the Act to the petitioner Mill.

1. The petitioner is a Spinning Mill. They have come forward to challenge the order passed by the second respondent Employees' Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal made in ATA No.372(13)/2000 dated 10.5.2005. By the aforesaid order, the Tribunal dismissed their appeal and refused to interfere with the order made by the first respondent under Section 7-A of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short PF Act) dated 16.05.2000. By the said order, the first respondent clubbed the petitioner Mill with one M/s.Sree Rajendra Mills Ltd., for the purpose of applicability of the PF Act.

2. The writ petition was admitted on 15.09.2005. Pending the writ petition, this Court granted an interim stay. Subsequently, the said interim order was made absolute on 12.09.2006. On notice from this Court, the first respondent had filed a counter affidavit dated 16.06.2011.

3. By a letter dated 16.01.1998, the first respondent held that the petitioner Mill was engaged in Cotton Yarn and Synthetic Yarn Textiles, which is included in the Schedule I of the PF Act. Their factory had employed more than 110 persons on 18.04.1997. Since the factory had completed the infancy period of three years as on 17.04.1997, they are bound to be covered by the provisions of the Act. Therefore, they were directed to make compliance with the provisions of the PF Act. Thereafter, a Questionnaire Form was given by the Enforcement Officer, Provident Fund Office, Salem dated 12.02.1998 asking the petitioner to give answers to 10 questions. The thrust of the questions proceeded on the basis as to whether the petitioner Mill has any other branch for which they are liable to pay contributions.

4. After the receipt of the answers to the questionnaire, a notice dated 02.11.1999 was sent by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, holding that the petitioner is a Branch Unit of Sree Rajendra Mills Ltd., as there is unity of management, common manager in control, financial nexus, functional integrality and unity of purpose between the two units. Therefore, under Section 2A of the PF Act, they are coverable from 18.04.1994 and the petitioner Unit cannot be treated as a separate unit for the purpose of any infancy protection. Hence, the petitioner was directed to submit all the returns for the period from 18.04.1994 to 18.04.1997 without the benefit of Section 16(1)(d) of the PF Act.

5. Subsequently, summons were issued on 14.12.1999 to appear in person to assess the Mill under Section 7A of the PF Act. It is at this stage, the petitioner filed an application before the first respondent representing that the two units are separate entities and requested them to drop further action claiming the dues for the infancy period to which they were eligible. The first respondent by an order dated 16.05.2000 passed an order under Section 7-A of the PF Act and held that the petitioner is not entitled for infancy benefits and the unit is liable for coverage from 18.04.1994 and the petitioner Spinning Mill is wholly depending on M/s.Sree Rajendra Mills Ltd.

6. Aggrieved by the order passed under Section 7-A of the PF Act, the petitioner preferred an appeal under Section 7-I of the PF Act to the second respondent EPF Appellate Tribunal. The said appeal was taken on file as ATA No.372(13)/2000. Along with the appeal memo, list of enclosures containing 8 documents were filed. On the said appeal, notice was issued to the first respondent. But the first respondent did not any counter. After hearing both parties, the Tribunal held that the petitioner Mill was set up with the active support of M/s.Sree Rajendra Mills Ltd, viz., technical or financial. Therefore, the petitioner Mill could be clubbed along with M/s.Sree Rajendra Mills and the infancy protection can be denied to them. It was also held they were engaged in the same kind of business viz., manufacturing of cotton yarn and there was common ownership for both Units. The Directors of the established co