JUDGMENT 1. - Petitioner is a factory registered under the Factories Act, 1948 and is a unit of M/s. Shree Agencies, a registered partnership firm having its registered office at Calcutta Shree Agencies was started on 3.9.1973 and had established a branch office at Kota in the year 1974. Shree Agencies is engaged in the activity of trading in goods prepared of Jute and Hessian cloth at Calcutta. M/s. Shree Syntax commenced its production on and from 24-6-1980 and is engaged in the manufacture of H. D P. E. woven cloth and bags, from H.D.P.E granules purchased from M/s. Prolyolifins Industries Limited and not from M/s. Shree Agencies, Kota. According to the petitioner since M/s. Shree Syntex is an independent manufacturing unit and commenced its production on 24th June, 1980, therefore, it is entitled to infancy benefits under section 16 of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, for a period of five years but since in February, 1984, the number of employees crossed the limit of 50, infancy benefits were available upto February, 1984 and since then, the factory is making compliance of the provisions of the Act, on and from March, 1984. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (hereinafter referred to as the Commissioner') vide his letter dated 21-3-1984 required that M/s. Shree Syntex Limited factory had come within the purview of the Act w.e.f. 31-3-1983, therefore, it should deposit the provident fund w.e.f. April, 1983 and as such, the petitioner was not entitled to benefit of infancy from April 1983 to February, 1984. Proceedings under section 7A of the Act were commenced. The Commissioner ultimately after the enquiry prescribed under law passed the impugned order dated 14-3-1988 holding that the factory of Shree Syntex being a blanch of M/s Shree Agencies, Calcutta, is not entitled to fresh infancy benefit under section 16 (1) (b) in respect of factory at Kota and that M/s. Shree Syntex should deposit the provident fund for employees employed in all the branches of M/s Shree Agencies, both at Calcutta and Kota along with employees of M/s Shree Syntex Limited. It is against this order that the present writ petition has open filed. Reply has also been filed on behalf of the respondents. Arguments have been heard. 2. It is against this order that the present writ petition has open filed. Reply has also been filed on behalf of the respondents. Arguments have been heard. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on The Associated Cement Companies Ltd. v. Their Workmen ( AIR 1960 SC 56 ) wherein it has been observed as under : "The Act not having prescribed any specific tests for determining what is 'one establishment', in considering the question whether a cement factory and the adjacent limestone quarry supplying link-stone to it, are one establishment, one must fall back on such considerations as in the ordinary industrial or business sense determine the unity of an industrial establishment having regard no doubt to the scheme and object of the Industrial Disputes Act and other relevant provision, of the Mines Act. 1952, or the Factories Act, 1948. It is, perhaps, impassible to lay down any one test as an absolute and invariable test for all cases. The real purpose of the tests is to find out the true relation between the parties, branches, units etc. If in their true relation they constitute one integrated whole, the establishment is one; if on the contrary they do not constitute one integrated whole, each unit is then a separate unit. How the relation between the units will be judged must depend on the facts proved, having regard to the scheme and object of the statute which gives the right of unemployment compensation and also prescribes a disqualification therefor Thus, in one case the unity of ownership, management and control may be the important test ; in another case functional integrity or general unity may be the important test and in still another case, the important test may be the unity of employment." 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied on Mahipal Singh v. R.P. F.C, (1972 Lab IC 1202) wherein a division bench of the Mysore High Court has held there the employer having two or more establishments under his control and having employed less than 20 persons in each of them, would attract no liability to contribute to the provident fund under the Act. 4. 4. Reliance has also been placed on Nabi Brothers v. R.P.F.C. (1977 (35, F.L.R. 80) and also on a division bench judgment of this Court in Special Appeal No. 231/1984 J. K. Synthetics Ltd. v. R.P.F.C. decided on 13th May, 1985. 5. On the other hand. learned counsel for the non-petitioners has also placed reliance on The Associated Cement Companies Ltd. (supra) wherein principles have been laid down regarding one establishment. 6. He has also placed reliance on Regional Provident Fund Commissioner v. S. K. M. Manufacturing Company (AIR 1962 S. C. 1536) wherein their lordships have considered the interpretation of Section 1 (3) (a) of the Act as to the applicability of Section 16. Reliance has also been placed on Associated industries Pvt. Ltd. v. R. P. F. C. (AIR 1964 SC 141). R. Ramakrishna Rao v. State of Kerala ( AIR 1968 SC 1367 ) regarding the scope of Section 16(l)(h) of the Act. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents has further placed reliance on Union of India v. Glass Works ( AIR 1971 SC 2577 ). He has also relied on the Explanation in Section 2A. 8. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the whole matter and have also gone through the record of the case as well as the various authorities cited before me. 9. The Supreme Court as early as in Associated Cement Companies Ltd. (supra) has very specifically observed that the Act has not prescribed any specific tests for determination as to what is one establishment'. Their lordships have of course prescribed some tests which can be applied in the facts of each case. These tests are the true relationship between the parties, branches, units etc. and management and control may be the important tests; in another case, functional integrity, general unity may be important tests and in still another case, the important test may be the unity of employment and this will depend on the facts of each case. 10. In the present case, it is an admitted position that M/s. Shree Agencies, a registered partnership firm is carrying on its business at Calcutta from 3-9-1973 and is engaged in the activity of trying of goods prepared of Jute and Hessian cloth and has its branch office at Kota since 1974, dealing with same products, whereas M/s Shree Syntex is manufacturing H.D.P.E. wooven cloth and bags which is manufactured from H.D.P.E. grannuals. Therefore, M/s. Shree Agencies and M/s. Shree Syntex are dealing in different products altogether. It is also admitted that M/s. Shree Syntex is not purchasing its raw material from M/s. Shree Agencies which is dealing only in Jute and Hessian products. Therefore, they do not have any functional integrity, whatsoever. There is no evidence on record that they have any unity of employment. These are two different establishments dealing with two different products and having different employees. Mere fact that M/s. Shree Agencies had started M/s. Shree Syntex and there seems to be unity of ownership, does not by itself will make them one establishment. There is no evidence of unity of management and control also of the two concerns. Therefore, keeping in mind the tests laid down by the Supreme Court in Associated Cement Companies case (supra), both the establishments cannot be said to be one unit. It is only M/s. Shree Syntex which is registered under the Factories Act. 1948. Shree Agencies is neither a factory nor doing any manufacturing process nor registered under the Factories Act. It is only trading in goods prepared out of Jute and Hessian-different products altogether from the one which are being manufactured by M/s. Shree Syntex. Therefore, under section 1 (3) (a) of the Act. M/s. Shrce Agencies cannot come within the definition of 'establishment' as has been held in Nabi's case (supra). The facts of the case of Glass Works (supra) are quite different. They were dealing in the same products namely glass. The facts of the Associated Cement Companies case (supra) are also quite different. There both the factories were in the same premises. the licence issued under the Factories Act was for the entire premises where both the factories were running. This court also in J. K. Synthetics Ltd.'s case (supra) has taken a similar view while observing "merely because both the above units/establishments belong to one company i.e. M/s. J.K. Synthetics cannot mean that they are one and the same and as such not entitled to any infancy benefits" and merely because there is one common owner they cannot be deprived to take the infancy benefit of the new establishment under section 16 of the Act. 11. In the result, this writ petition is allowed, and the impugned order dated 14-3-1988 (Anx. 5) is set aside. No order as to costs.Petition allowed. *******