JUDGMENT - SUKUMARAN K., J.:—The petitioners are engaged in industrial activities dealing with bi-metal products. They have obtained a licence in the year 1975 evidenced by Licence No. IL/290 (75) dated 6-8-1975 for the manufacture of bi-metal bearings, bushes and thrust washers. They were carrying on business in Plot No. H-6 in MIDC Industrial Area, Chikalthana. They thought of opening up another activity - production of an allied product. The products were bi -metal bearings and bushes. They own Plot No. H - 7 in the same industrial area. Needless to say that the plots must be contiguous to Plot No. H-6. In the new area, the petitioner set up production of bi-metal strips. They got a clarification evidenced by Exhibit F dated 16-8-1988 that they do not require a separate licence/SIA's registration for the manufacture of bi-metal strips for captive use in the light of the industrial licence already held by them. 2. The petitioner made an application under section 16 for infancy benefits for the establishment claiming that it is a new establishment. That has been considered by the Sub-Regional Officer of Regional Provident Fund Office and rejected by communication Exhibit H dated 27-9-1991. The application Exhibit G emphasised only two aspects, viz., that the factory was a new venture, that machines were newly purchased, and that the investments were raised afresh. 3. The claim was considered, and as stated earlier, declined, under Exhibit H. It was observed, “...Your establishment located at Plot No. H-7, MIDC Industrial Area, Aurangabad, is part and parcel of your main establishment for all purpose....” 4. The order is assailed by the petitioner in this writ petition. 5. Counsel lay down the principles as reported in the decisions in (1991(1) C.L.R. 505)1, as also the decision rendered by this Court on 3-8-1981 in (Special Civil Application No. 198 of 1978)2. 6. Whether an establishment is the same or not depends upon a variety of factors. Existence of one or more would not be decisive one way or the other. Many factors may be common, yet one may tilt the decision. Interpretation of the word' establishment' did not commence in 1991. There have been decisions although under different enactments referring to the term 'establishment'. Even the World Court had occasion to consider a connected problem. Existence of one or more would not be decisive one way or the other. Many factors may be common, yet one may tilt the decision. Interpretation of the word' establishment' did not commence in 1991. There have been decisions although under different enactments referring to the term 'establishment'. Even the World Court had occasion to consider a connected problem. The principles referred to and relied on by counsel for the petitioner will have to be applied to the facts of the case with care and caution. The mere fact that there is common ownership, and a consolidated accounts, and a single balance-sheet, may not pose it a single establishment, if the locations are different and distant, activity is different, controls variegated and marketing canalised in diverse and different channels. On the other hand, a short distance between two areas of activities would not detract from a singleness of establishment provided other factors clearly indicate to that direction and the decision. The evaluation has to be made with an overall view, bearing in mind the predominance of the relevant factor in a given situation. The question for our consideration is whether the decision reached by the authorities could be characterised as totally opposed to the legal principles, or perverse in the assessment of the materials. We are of the opinion that it is not so. If only one inference is possible and that has not been reached, it may be a matter for consideration by the Constitutional Court. It is not enough for invalidating a decision that on the facts, a different inference is possible. 7. In the present case, the single ownership, the single licence under which the activities are carried on, the unmistakable contiguity in the area of activity, the cognate nature of the products and the allied activities associated with the entire activities, point out to a direction where the establishment is single and singular. This is the sole conclusion which we can reach on the materials that dissuade us from interfering in the matter under Article 226 of the Constitution. The writ petition is dismissed. 8. After the judgment was rendered, counsel for the petitioner sought certificate for appeal to the Supreme Court. In our opinion, no question which needs the adjudication of the Supreme Court arises in this case. The application is declined. Petition dismissed. -----