JUDGMENT Hon’ble S.U. Khan, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. Under Section 16 (1)(d) of Employees, Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as “E.P.F. Act”), it was provided that the Act should not apply to any establishment newly set up until the expiry of a period of three years from the date on which such establishment was, or had been, set up. (The said provision was omitted in the year 1998, however, it was very much there at the time when the controversy involved in this writ petition arose). 3. Under the aforesaid provision petitioner was granted exemption for three years for its new Unit known by the name of Forge Division through order dated 13.4.1981 passed by Provident Fund Inspector. (Copy of the said order is Annexure ‘2’ to the writ petition). According to the said order manufacturing process had for the first time started on 23.3.1978 hence until 31.3.1981 provisions of the E.P.F. Act were not to apply to the said Unit. However, in para 2 of the said order it was provided that exemption was provisional subject to further verification of records. Thereafter through order dated 18.8.1981 (Annexure ‘9’ to the writ petition), Sri S.K. Sarkar, acting for Regional Provident Fund Commissioner U.P. withdrew the earlier order. In the said order it is mentioned that earlier also on 22.7.1981 letter was sent to the petitioner to implement the provisions of E.P.F. Act with effect from 23.3.1981. It is also mentioned in the letter dated 18.8.1981 that “On further verification it has been found that the provisions of the aforesaid Act and schemes framed thereunder are applicable to above named Unit w.e.f. 1.3.1978 and not from 23.3.1981.” Thereafter it appears that some review petition was filed by the petitioner and ultimately a detailed order was passed on 18.10.1985 by Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, U.P. which is contained in Annexure ‘21’ and is challenged through this writ petition along with the order dated 18.8.1981. 4. The case of the petitioner was that its Forge Division Unit was an independent Unit, hence it was included in the definition of ‘new establishment’. In the order dated 18.10.1985 the following four questions were framed : (a) Is there any unity of ownership, control, supervision and administration subsisting between the Trackparts of India Ltd., Forging Division, Kanpur and the main unit, and if so, its effect? In the order dated 18.10.1985 the following four questions were framed : (a) Is there any unity of ownership, control, supervision and administration subsisting between the Trackparts of India Ltd., Forging Division, Kanpur and the main unit, and if so, its effect? (b) Is there any financial and functional integrability existing between the forging division and the main unit as contended by the department, and if so, its effect? (c) Is there any unity of employment between the two units as also could, it be said that some persons, however, few are working for both the units ? (d) And lastly whether the Trackparts of India Ltd., Forging Division, Kanpur is entitled for any infancy period as provided under Section 16 (i)(b) of the Act? The above questions were decided against the petitioner. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has cited the following authorities in support of his contention : 1. M/s. Vipro Limited v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Karnataka, 1994 L.L.R. 34 : In the said authority it has been held that if two Units under the same management are of such nature that one can exist conveniently and reasonably without the other, they are not one but separate Units. 2. Majestic Trading House and another v. Union of India and another, 1990 L.L.R. 394 : In this Division Bench authority of this Court it has been held that unless inter connection amongst different units is established of Mutual dependence of one over the other so that the one cannot function without the other, the units cannot be held to be one. 3. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and another v. D.M. Chemical Co. Ltd., 1998 (80) F.L.R. 561 The Supreme Court in the above authority has held that infancy protection is available unless inter connection along with common ownership is proved. 6. In the instant case common ownership is admitted but inter connection is neither admitted nor found to be proved. In fact, no question/issue in that regard was framed by Regional Provident Fund Commissioner U.P. 7. Accordingly writ petition is allowed. Impugned orders are set aside. Order dated 13.4.1981 contained in Annexure ‘2’ is restored. ————