JUDGMENT Petitioner has filed this petition challenging the order Annexure P-1 passed by Presiding Officer, Employees' Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, dated 1.9.1999, by which the Appellate Tribunal has affirmed the order passed by Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Jabalpur. It is held that the two establishments are not separate and for the purpose of employees' provident fund both may be treated as one and are liable to pay provident fund. The facts in short are that M/s U.S.A. Hotel is owned by Shakeel Ahmed, while one restaurant namely Dawat Restaurant is owned by his wife Smt. Yasmit Shakeel. It is not in dispute that Smt. Yasmit Shakeel executed a power of attorney in favour of her husband to run the restaurant also. The employees engaged in both the establishments are more than 20. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, after appreciating various evidence recorded a finding that both the establishments are one integrated and are liable for payment of provident fund. The order passed by Commissioner was assailed before the Appellate Tribunal on the ground that both the establishments are independent to each other and are being run separately. Their books of accounts are maintained separately and they are separately registered under various Statutes and the owners of both the establishments are paying Income Tax separately. The appeal was contested by the Department on the ground that both the owners of establishments are having close relationship and both the establishments are interconnected. Certain documents were also relied on by the respondents before the appellate Tribunal. The appellate Tribunal after re-appreciating the evidence found that inspite of several opportunities afforded to the parties to produce record and documents to show that the two establishments are separate, they failed to produce any material on record, controverting the contention of Commissioner. The lease agreement executed by Shakeel Ahmed in favour of his wife Smt. Yasmit Shakeel on a monthly rent of Rs. 10,000/-relating to restaurant also proves that in reality Shakeel Ahmed is the true owner of two establishments. After recording these finding, the appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal. In this petition again the aforesaid contention has been reiterated by the petitioner that both the establishments are separate, owners are separate, both are being separately assessed for the purpose of income tax and registered as separate establishments under the M.P. Shops and Establishment Act, 1958. After recording these finding, the appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal. In this petition again the aforesaid contention has been reiterated by the petitioner that both the establishments are separate, owners are separate, both are being separately assessed for the purpose of income tax and registered as separate establishments under the M.P. Shops and Establishment Act, 1958. In these circumstances, finding of both the authority is perverse and may be quashed. Learned counsel appearing for respondents supported the order and contended that in view of specific provisions of Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act' for short), the authority has rightly recorded a finding that for the purpose of this Act, both the establishments deserves to be clubbed, so that the employees may get the benefit of the Act. He has relied on the definition of 'employer' under section 2 (e) and section 2-A of the Act and contended that in view of aforesaid provisions, the authorities have rightly held that the provisions of this Act are applicable. He has relied on the definition of 'employer' under section 2 (e) and section 2-A of the Act and contended that in view of aforesaid provisions, the authorities have rightly held that the provisions of this Act are applicable. For ready reference, section 2 (e) and 2-A of the Act are quoted: 2 (e) "employer" means - (i) in relation to an establishment which is a factory, the owner or occupier of the factory, including the agent of such owner or occupier, the legal representative of a deceased owner or occupier and, where a person has been named as a manager of the factory under clause (f) of sub-section (1) of section 7 of the Factories Act, 1948, the person so named; and (ii) in relation to any other establishment, the person who, or the authority which, has the ultimate control over the affairs of the establishment, and where the said affairs are entrusted to a manager, managing director or managing agent, such manager, managing director or managing agent; 2-A. Establishment to include all departments and branches -- For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that where an establishment consists of different departments or has branches, whether situate in the same place or in different places, all such departments or branches shall be treated as parts of the same establishment." From the perusal of definition of 'employer', it is apparent that the definition is very wide and it includes agent of such owner or occupier, the legal representative of a deceased owner or occupier, including a manager of a factory, as defined under the Factories Act. Clause (ii) of sub-section (e) of section 2 specifically provides that the person who has ultimate control over the affairs of establishment or where the said affairs are entrusted to a manager/agent, such person shall be deemed to be employer. Section 2-A of the Act, provides where an establishment consists of different departments or has branches, all such departments or branches shall be treated as parts of the same establishment. The aforesaid provisions are exhaustive and deals with all the situations where any employer to defeat the provisions of this Act manages affairs in such a manner that on paper the establishments looks separate, but in fact and in practice both are one and integrated. The aforesaid provisions are exhaustive and deals with all the situations where any employer to defeat the provisions of this Act manages affairs in such a manner that on paper the establishments looks separate, but in fact and in practice both are one and integrated. It is not in dispute that part of M/s U.S.A. Hotel building has been let-out by Shakeel Ahmed to his wife Smt. Yasmit Shakeel, in which M/s Dawat Restaurant is running. The said Dawat Restaurant is run by Shakeel Ahmed as holder of power of attorney. Common bills are issued for both, for the services extended by Hotel U.S.A and Dawat Restaurant. One person is issuing bills and is collecting the amount. It appears that MIs U.S.A. Hotel is providing lodging facilities, while Dawat Restaurant is providing food and other facilities in the Hotel. Both the facilities are provided by the same staff in one premises. Ultimate management of both the establishments are in the hands of Shakeel Ahmed. Aforesaid both the establishments may be treated separate unit for the purpose of income tax and other taxation purposes, but so far as the provisions of the Act are concerned the definition under sections 2 (e) and 2-A are exhaustive and includes all such establishments for the purpose of enforcement of the Act and the employer cannot avoid liability for the payment of provident fund by managing the affairs in such a manner. The provisions of the Act are to provide provident fund, family pensions, deposit insurance funds for employees. A beneficial legislation which is for the benefit of employees it is to be construed accordingly. The definition under section 2 (e) includes all such establishments and section 2-A includes all departments or branches situated within the same place or at different places. In the aforesaid circumstances, the authority on the basis of evidence has rightly held that both the establishments are run by one employer and are interlinked and for the purpose of the Act both the establishments are one and may be clubbed to enforce provision of the Act. In the aforesaid order, I do not find any jurisdictional error, warranting interference of this Court. This petition lacks merit and is dismissed with no order as to costs.