The ruling clarifies that a bona fide division of an estate negates liability under the Provident Fund Act unless the integrity of management across estates is maintained.

JUDGMENT

Petitioners are the son and wife of late A.T.Mathew who purchased a portion of "Mettukuzhy Estate" by virtue of Ext.P1 sale deed dated 04.03.1980. Mettukuzhy Estate originally was having an extent of 100 acres with cardamom and was belonged to Vadivelu Gounder, his wife Padmavathy and his niece Sakunthala. The 100 acres was sold on 18.03.1967 by separate teer deed to 6 persons namely Paul Raj, Peter, Prabhakar, their sisters Mary Kulantha Swamy, Stella Salieth and Emelda Mary. Prior to the sale of the original Estate, a code number was allotted by the P.F. Authority to Mettukuzhy Estate as KR/2378. After the sale of the Estate, the P.F.Authority allotted code No.KR/2378 to Mary Kulanthu Swamy and separate code numbers for other 5 Estates as KR/2893, KR/2894, KR/2895, KR/2896 and KR/2897. Subsequently, P.F. Department informed by letter dated 06.08.1971 stating that Mettukuzhy Estate was covered under the provisions of the Provident Fund Act from 21.03.1967. When the coverage was disputed, the 1st respondent conducted Section 7A enquiry and passed order dated 10.11.1982 holding that amounts are due from the above 6 persons for the period up to 5/75 and from the 1st petitioner's father for the period from 6/75 to 31-10-80. Late A.T.Mathew challenged the said order before the 2nd respondent which was rejected by order dated 07.06.1983 against which an O.P. No. 7166/83 was filed before this Court. This Court disposed the above original petition by Ext.P2 judgment and quashed the orders passed by the respondents and made an observation that if there had been a disruption of the original establishment, the petitioner therein could not be made liable on the ground that he was having interest over a portion of it and also directed the respondent to examine the liability in the light of the observation made in the judgment. Ext.P2 judgment was delivered in the light of a decision of the Full Bench of this Court inT.A.Zainulabdeen v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner [1974 KLT 708].

2. In the light of the above decision which relies on the Full Bench decision, the only question to be decided is whether there had been a real and bonafide division which disrupted the original estate having an extent of 100 acres and gave birth to a new, separate and distinct Estate. It is the case of the petitioners that Late A.T.Mathew produced his teer deed, Ext.P1 and 6 separate sale/teer deed of others before the 1st respondent. But the 1st respondent passed an order on 30.06.1988 finding that the Estate is covered under the Provident Fund Act . Late A.T.Mathew again filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent challenging the order of the 1st respondent. The 2nd respondent again dismissed the appeal by order dated 28.07.1997. The 1st petitioner's father challenged the order of the 2nd respondent dated 28.07.1997 before this Court by filing O.P. No. 19909/97 which was disposed of by judgment dated 09.07.2006 directing the 1st respondent to reconsider the matter afresh. Again the 1st respondent passed an order on 20.02.2007 holding that the dues up to 5/75 are to be remitted by 6 persons of the 6 Estates and the amount shown in KR/2378 from 6/75 to 31.10.1980 is to be paid by the legal heirs of Sri.A.T.Mathew. Aggrieved by the order dated

20.02.2007 of the 1st respondent, the petitioners filed Appeal No. ATA No. 312 (7) 2007 before the 2nd respondent. In order to substantiate the case that the 6 Estates and the Estate of late A.T.Mathew are separate entity, the petitioners produced Exts.P3 to P8(f) before the 2nd respondent, which were issued separately to all the 6 persons by different authorities like Deputy Labour Officer, Kerala Plantation Department, Agricultural Income Tax Department and the Village Officer, Kattapana treating the Estate as separate. It is the case of the petitioners that, the 2nd respondent, without adverting to the observation made by this Court in Ext.P2 judgment and the Full Bench decision of this Court in T.A.Zainulab