The integration of establishments under the Act requires factual findings and interdependence between entities, and valid reasons for passing orders cannot be supplemented after the fact.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issue of Writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the 2nd respondent relating to the order passed in ATA No.624(13)2011, dated 08.02.2012 and quash the same.)

1.This writ petition has been filed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner seeking issuance of a writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to and in connection with the order passed by the 2nd respondent in ATA No.624(13)2011, dated 08.02.2011 and to quash the same.

2. The brief facts that are relevant for the disposal of the writ petition are as under:

Pursuant to the report submitted by the Enforcement Officer of the Office of the petitioner herein, the petitioner herein passed an order dated 27.10.2006 under Section 2A of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) declaring that the 1st respondent herein is having managerial and supervisory control over the other entities viz., Pavizham Galaxy Jewellers India (P) Limited, Pavizham Jewellers India (P) Limited and Pavizham Jewel City, a proprietrix concern determined that the 1st respondent herein, and other three units are part and parcel and the employees employed therein are to be made members of the Provident Fund from the date of joining of each employee in each unit by treating them as the employees employed in the 1st respondent unit. Aggrieved by the said order dated 27th October, 2006, the 1st respondent herein filed an appeal under Section 7A of the Act 1952 before the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent, by an order dated 8th February, 2011, allowed the said appeal. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present writ petition.

3. Heard Sri C. Kulanthaivel, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R. Manoharan, learned counsel for the 1st respondent and perused the entire material available on record.

4. From the perusal of the order dated 27th October, 2006, and the pleadings on record, it is evident that the 1st respondent herein was established as a proprietary concern in the year 1992, Pavizham Jewellers India (P) Limited was established in the year 1999, Pavizham Galaxy Jewellers India (P) Limited was incorporated in the year 2000 and Pavizham Jewel City, a proprietrix concern, has come into existence later. The Proprietor of the 1st respondent herein, viz., C.V. Sunny had invested the amounts in all the three entities and other entities are all managed by the family members of the Proprietor of the 1st respondent herein. The petitioner herein, after having conducted an enquiry into the matter by issuing due notice to the 1st respondent herein, arrived at a conclusion that the Proprietor of the 1st respondent herein had invested his amounts in all the other three entities and he is also the Managing Director in one of the three entities and his family members alone are managing the other three entities and concluded that the employees working in the other three entities are also to be treated as the employees of the 1st respondent herein and passed the order under Section 2A of the Act 1952.

5. Admittedly, the 1st respondent herein is registered with the 1st respondent herein and has been remitting the Provident Fund contributions for the employees, who are working with the 1st respondent up to date. There is no dispute about the factum of the 1st respondent complying with the provisions of the Act, 1952. The petitioner herein, while passing the order dated 27th October, 2006, observed as under:

“The real purpose is to find out the true relation between the parts, branches, units etc. If in their true relation they constitute one integrated whole, we say that the establishment is one, if on the contrary they do no constitute one integrated whole each unit is then a separate unit.”

6. The petitioner herein having observed as above, failed to examine the said aspect in the right direction and also failed to record