JUDGMENT : K.M. Thaker, J. 1. Heard Ms. Shailaja, learned advocate for the petitioner, and Mr. Dave, learned advocate for the respondent. 2. This petition is filed by the petitioner-Employees Provident Fund Organization through Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Rajkot who, passed the order dated 3.3.2004 in proceedings instituted under Section 7(A) of the Act. 3. By this petition, the petitioner has challenged order dated 11.8.2010 passed by the learned Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal in ATA No. 517(5) of 2004 whereby the learned Tribunal set aside the above mentioned order dated 10.3.2004 passed by the learned Tribunal under Section 7(A) of the Act. 4. The relevant facts involved in and leading to submission of present petition are that, a proprietary concern named Kalariya Bras Industries was inspected somewhere in November-1999 by the Inspector of the Employees Provident Fund Organization and after his visit, the Inspector submitted his inspection report recommending that other two establishments namely, Kalariya Wire Products and Nirmal Industries, though separate, are one and the same and should be treated as single organization for the purpose of applicability of the Act. For the said purpose, the Inspector/Enforcement Officer also visited other two establishments namely, Kalariya Wire Products and Nirmal Industries which are separate from the petitioner establishment and are situate at different location. On the basis of the report, coverage letter was issued and Provident Fund Code number was assigned for the said three establishments, i.e. the respondent herein and Kalariya Wire Products and Nirmal Industries. 4.1 It appears that the respondent opposed the said decision of applying the provisions of the Act to its establishment and it also opposed the coverage letter whereby Provident Fund Code number came to be assigned which marked applicability of the Act to the said establishment/s. The respondent herein claimed that it had never employed 20 or more employees and that it had no connection with the other two establishments namely, Kalariya Wire Products and Nirmal Industries, and there was neither any base or material nor justification to club the said three separate and different establishments and to issue common Provident Fund Code number for the 3 establishments. 4.2 The petitioner received the said objections and that therefore, the petitioner, after lapse of about 3 years, initiated proceedings under Section 7(A) of the Act to decide applicability of the Act and coverage of the said three establishments under the Act. 4.2 The petitioner received the said objections and that therefore, the petitioner, after lapse of about 3 years, initiated proceedings under Section 7(A) of the Act to decide applicability of the Act and coverage of the said three establishments under the Act. 4.3 For the purpose of initiating proceedings under Section 7(A) of the Act, the petitioner issued notice/summons dated 9.9.2003 bearing Reference No. GJ/RAJ/CIRCLE 8/GJ/28306/40/1416. According to the petitioner, hearing in connection with the said notice/summons dated 9.9.2003 was conducted from time to time and the final hearing was fixed on 26.2.2004. 4.4 According to the record, one Mr. Joshi, learned advocate, had appeared on behalf of the respondent and objections were raised against the notice and the demand before the petitioner. Subsequently, the petitioner passed order dated 10.3.2004 holding that the said three establishments are rightly covered under the Act. He also directed the establishments to comply with the provisions of the Act and to remit the contribution dues. 4.5 Aggrieved by the said order dated 10.3.2004 passed by present petitioner, the respondent herein filed appeal before the learned appellate tribunal. The appeal was registered as ATA No. 517(5) 2004. 4.6 The learned Tribunal heard present respondent and present petitioner and vide order dated 11.8.2010 allowed the appeal and set aside the order dated 10.3.2004 passed by present petitioner. The petitioner felt aggrieved by the learned Tribunal's order dated 11.8.2010. Therefore, the petitioner preferred present petition against the order passed by the learned Tribunal. 5. In present petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 11.8.2010 and it is claimed that the learned Tribunal should not have set aside the order dated 10.3.2004 and it is prayed that the learned Tribunal's order dated 11.8.2010 may be set aside and the order passed by the petitioner on 10.3.2004 may be restored and confirmed. 5.1 So as to oppose the petition, the respondent has filed affidavit and placed on record several documents to support and justify its claim that the respondent establishment is not at all connected in any manner whatsoever with other two establishments and there is no reason or justification to club the respondent establishment with other two establishments. In the reply affidavit, the respondent has averred and stated, inter alia, that:- "3.6 The documentary evidence produced on record clearly shows that there is no financial integrity of any nature between the three establishments. In the reply affidavit, the respondent has averred and stated, inter alia, that:- "3.6 The documentary evidence produced on record clearly shows that there is no financial integrity of any nature between the three establishments. Merely because the members of HUF were partner in three different establishments, it could not have been held by the learned Commissioner that there is financial integrity between the establishments. The finding of the learned Commissioner is not supported by any document. On the contrary, documents produced on record clearly suggest that there is no financial integrity of whatsoever nature between the establishments. I state and submit that in absolutely illegal and arbitrary manner, the Enforcement Officer clubbed all the three establishments. There is no financial integrity or similarity of manufacturing process. M/s. Kalaria Wire Products and Nirmal Industries have been situated on separate premises and the registration is also separate and distinct. It has not been appreciated that the respondent has never employed 20 or more employees at any point of time. Without looking into the documentary evidence produced by the present respondent and other two companies, straightway order came to be passed by the learned Commissioner. I state and submit that several documents were produced before the learned Tribunal also. A copy of appeal memo along with all the documents are annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-R-1 with this reply. It is clearly made out by the present respondent that there is no financial integrity at all. In fact, the present respondent can survive without existence of other two establishments. Similarly, the said two establishments can survive without existence of present respondent or each other. The proforma filled-in by the Enforcement Officer by misrepresentation to the present respondent has been heavily relied upon whereas substantive documents have been totally ignored by the petitioner while passing the impugned order under Section 7A. Even several documents relied upon by the petitioner while passing the order under Section 7A were not provided to the respondent and even the petitioner was not provided opportunity of cross-examination of the said Enforcement Officer. The proforma and inquiry reports were prepared by the Enforcement Officer at his wish and will and by only filling up the Column Nos. 1 to 8, signatures were taken of Shri Kirit Patel, who signed in bona fide belief. The Enforcement Officer was not made available for cross-examination despite repeated request. The proforma and inquiry reports were prepared by the Enforcement Officer at his wish and will and by only filling up the Column Nos. 1 to 8, signatures were taken of Shri Kirit Patel, who signed in bona fide belief. The Enforcement Officer was not made available for cross-examination despite repeated request. Even though there was contention raised by the present respondent with regard to the false and fabricated proforma and report of the Enforcement Officer, the said Officer was not made available for cross-examination. The petitioner passed cryptic order without adverting to the facts of the case and general observations have been made de-horse the evidence on record. I crave liberty to refer to and rely upon the said appeal memo without reproducing the contents of the same hereinbelow for the sake of brevity and convenience. It is submitted that there are no interconnection between the present respondent and other two establishments. There is no common supervisory, financial or managerial control. Each establishment is independently handled and there is no connection with each other of any financial of supervisory control. The workers wee also separate and distinct and there services were not transferable. There is no financial integrity between the three separate and distinct establishments. The law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as by several other High Courts have not been looked into at all and order under Section 7A came to be passed against the principles of natural justice. Even bare minimum principles under Section 7A have not been observed by the petitioner while passing the order. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal has set aside the order on different grounds; however, the said order of the learned Tribunal can be supported on several other grounds also. It is submitted that the petitioner has no case in eye of law and therefore, the impugned order may kindly be upheld by this Hon'ble Court in the interest of justice." 5.2 Alongwith the reply affidavit, the respondent herein also placed on record, memo of appeal which was filed by it before the learned Tribunal against the order dated 10.3.2004. It is claimed that the factual details and other aspects mentioned in the memo of appeal be treated as part of the affidavit in reply against the relief prayed for by the petitioner in present petition. It is claimed that the factual details and other aspects mentioned in the memo of appeal be treated as part of the affidavit in reply against the relief prayed for by the petitioner in present petition. In the appeal memo, the respondent herein has averred and stated that:- "(iii) It is evident from the aforesaid facts that the Appellant is an independent, separate and distinct establishment itself having its own legal name and title in which it can sue and be sued. It has having its own factory, plant, machineries, electric power connection, its own set of employees not transferable or interchangeable to other concern. It maintains its own Books of Accounts, Muster Rolls and Pay Rolls etc. It has having its own Permanent Income Tax Account Number and is being assessed separately under Income Tax Act. It has neither any nexus nor any connection with M/s. Kalaria Wire Products and M/s. Nirmal Industries, Jamnagar with whom the Appellant has been clubbed together for the purpose of applying the Act. There is neither any unity of Management, supervision, and control, nor any unity of finance, employment nor there is any functional integrality in between the Appellant and the said two other companies nor the Appellant had any control whatsoever upon the management of the said companies and all are having separate legal entities and can exist and survive independently. Appellant denies that the said companies are their department or a branch or a unit. The Code letter dated 31-03-2000 issued by the Respondent's office is based on false and fabricated Proformas and Inquiry Report dated 23-11-1999. (v) The learned respondent has however failed to hold proper enquiry by himself for ascertaining the employment strength and investigating the facts relating to clubbing and simply relied upon the false and fabricated Proformas and Inquiry reports dated 23-11-1999 (Annexure-A-3 colly.) without making available the Enforcement Officer concerned to prove his report and to confront cross-examination by the Appellant. Learned Respondent also failed to appreciate the settled law regarding clubbing of two establishments without uttering an iota of words and passed impugned order dated 10-03-2004 (Annexure-A-1). The Learned Respondent has erred in drawing wrong conclusions (1) regarding signing of three proformas dated 23-11-1999 (2) same manufacturing activities (3) business of all companies run by the members of Hindu Undivided Family. The aforesaid conclusions are perverse, unfounded and unwarranted and opposed to the evidence. The Learned Respondent has erred in drawing wrong conclusions (1) regarding signing of three proformas dated 23-11-1999 (2) same manufacturing activities (3) business of all companies run by the members of Hindu Undivided Family. The aforesaid conclusions are perverse, unfounded and unwarranted and opposed to the evidence. Respondent Commissioner has further failed to show as to how functional integrality exist in between the establishment and the another two different and distinct companies. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said impugned order, the Appellant has filed Review Application on 12-04-2004 which is summarily rejected by the learned respondent vide his impugned letter dated 11-06-2004 without looking into the errors apparent on the face of the record (Annexure-A-2). Annexed hereto and marked Annexure-A-7 is a copy of Review Application dated 12-04-2004 filed by the Appellant. (1) The learned respondent did not make available the concerned Enforcement Officer whose report dated 23-11-1999 are the basis for coverage and are under challenge. The concerned Enforcement Officer required to prove his report and to confront cross examination by the Appellant. The Learned respondent failed to make Enforcement Officer available for evidence inspite of repeated requests and thereby committed patent breach of the principles of natural justice. (8) The learned respondent Commissioner failed to appreciate that the Appellant was a very small industry employed less than twenty persons and it had neither any nexus nor any connection with M/s. Kalaria Wire Products and M/s. Nirmal Industries which are separate, independent, distinct legal entity for all the practical purposes. (9) The learned respondent Commissioner has passed cryptic order contrary to the provisions of Act inasmuch as the provisions of the Section 2A do not envisage clubbing of three different, distinct and independent establishments." 6. In this factual background, Ms. Shailaja, learned advocate for the petitioner, submitted that the learned Tribunal has committed error in setting aside the order dated 10.3.2004 passed by the petitioner. She submitted that the petitioner's decision holding that the three establishments are one and the same and they are required to be clubbed for the purpose of applicability of the Act is justified in light of the facts of the case and evidence. She submitted that the order of the learned Tribunal may be set aside and the order dated 10.3.2004 may be restored. 7. Mr. She submitted that the order of the learned Tribunal may be set aside and the order dated 10.3.2004 may be restored. 7. Mr. Dave, learned advocate for the respondent, submitted that the learned Tribunal has not committed any error in setting aside the order dated 10.3.2004. He submitted that the order dated 10.3.2004 suffered from vice of non-application of mind, non-consideration of evidence and violation of principles of natural justice besides other irregularities in the proceedings and the apparent errors in the decision of the petitioner. 8. I have heard submissions by learned counsel for the contesting parties and I have also considered the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal. 9. So as to consider the contentions raised by the learned advocate for the petitioner and so as to consider the issue as to whether the learned Tribunal has committed any error in setting aside the order of the petitioner and whether the said order dated 10.3.2004 passed by the petitioner is sustainable in law and/or on facts, it is relevant and necessary to take into account the order dated 10.3.2004 passed by the petitioner and the order dated 11.8.2010 passed by the learned Tribunal. For the said purpose, it is also necessary to reproduce entire order dated 10.3.2004 passed by the petitioner which would demonstrate and also provide the grounds to decide the issue as to whether the said order is legally sustainable or not. However, before taking into account the order dated 10.3.2004, it would be appropriate to first take a look at the order passed by the learned Tribunal. The relevant part of the order dated 11.8.2010 reads thus:- "2. The case of the appellant is that the appellant is a proprietary concern and its staff strength never exceeded 20. The EPF Authority clubbed the appellant with M/s. Kalaria Wire Products and M/s. Nirmal Industries All the three establishments are separate and there was no interconnection between them. The impugned order of the EPF Authority is illegal one. 3. The case of the respondent is that all the factories are owned by one person and business is same so they are rightly clubbed. 4. It is contended that in the absence of financial, managerial and functional integrity the clubbing is improper one. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned order. 6. 3. The case of the respondent is that all the factories are owned by one person and business is same so they are rightly clubbed. 4. It is contended that in the absence of financial, managerial and functional integrity the clubbing is improper one. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned order. 6. Two establishments can be treated as one if there is financial, managerial of functional integrity between the two. In the decision reported in 1960 Supreme Court page 56 Associate Cement Company Ltd. Vs. Workmen, the lordship held that, "in one case unity of ownership management and control may be an important test in another case financial integrity or general unity may be competent test and in still another case the important test may be the unity of employment." The perusal of the decision reveals that there is no fixed formula to determine whether 2 establishments are one or not and each case is to be decided on is own merit. In the case in hand, the impugned order of the EPF Authority reveals that the owner of all the establishments is common and the business is same. Except this no findings have been recorded to show that there was financial or functional integrity nor any discussion was made to this effect. Common ownership is not sufficient to treat two establishments as one. In the case of M/s. Devesh Sandeep Associate Vs. Regional PF Commissioner the lordship held that, "mere fact of common ownership of the two unities and mere location of the 2 unities in common premises by itself is not sufficient to establish the test of functional integrity." 7. Thus, in view of the above discussion, the order of the authority cannot be sustained. Hence ordered, the appeal is allowed. The order of the EPF Authority is hereby set aside. Copy of order be sent to both the parties. File be consigned to record room." 10. From the above quoted order, it emerges that the learned Tribunal took into consideration the decision by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Associate Cement Company Ltd. v. Workmen [1960 SC 56] and the learned Tribunal also observed and held in the order dated 11.8.2010 that:- "...Except this no findings have been recorded to show that there was financial or functional integrity (sic) nor any discussion was made to this effect...." 11. In light of the said order, it would be appropriate to now examine the order dated 10.3.2004 which reads thus:- "BEFORE THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER In the matter of proceedings under Section 7-A of Employees' Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 in respect of M/s. Kalaria Brass Industries including M/s. Kalaria Wire Products including M/s. Nirmal Industries, Jamanagar bearing P.F. Code No. GJ-28306. -: ORDER:- The establishment M/s. Kalaria Brass Industries including M/s. Kalaria Wire Products including M/s. Nirmal Industries, Jamangar (hereinafter called the 'establishment') is covered unit under Employees' Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter called the 'Act') bearing P.F. Code No. GJ/28306. WHEREAS for the purpose of deciding the applicability under the Act, the employer was summoned vide notice issued under reference No. GJ/RAJ/CIRCLE 8/GJ/28306/40/1416 dated 9.9.2003 to all three units said above separately to appear before the assessing officer with the supporting documents/records/information to represent his case. It was also made clear their in that if they fail to attend the inquiry/represent their case, the matter shall be decided ex-parte considering the facts/details available on record. WHEREAS proceedings was fixed for hearing on 7.8.2003 and then adjourned to 3.9.2003, 24.9.2003, 16.10.2003, 13.11.2003, 16.12.2003, 2.1.2004, 16.1.2004, 21.1.2004, 6.2.2004, 17.2.2004 and finally fixed on 26.2.2004. Shri K.R. Joshi, Advocate appeared on behalf of the establishment (all the three units) in the 7-A proceedings to represent the case and submitted the records. After having gone through the record submitted by the establishment, information available on file, I have come to conclusion that all the three units are different for name shake only as financial integrity is found thereon account of mutual dependency due to sharing in capital account and are run by the members of Hindu Undivided Family. It is also seen that the proforma showing the details in respect of all the three units are signed by one person Shri Kirit B. Patel, at the time of coverage i.e. 23.11.99. Products manufactured are same even though registered separately under various Acts and represented separately by members of a Hindu Undivided Family constitute a single establishment for the purpose of compliance under Act and the Schemes framed thereunder. Products manufactured are same even though registered separately under various Acts and represented separately by members of a Hindu Undivided Family constitute a single establishment for the purpose of compliance under Act and the Schemes framed thereunder. Now, therefore, I, N.R. Meena, Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, order that the establishments (namely M/s. Kalaria Brass Industries including M/s. Kalaria Wire Products including M/s. Nirmal Industries, Jamangar) are one & same for the purpose of making compliance under the Act and are rightly covered w.e.f. 1.4.98 on recommendation of the squad consisted of four Enforcement Officers. I further order to establishment to comply with the provisions of the Act and remit the dues and produce the receipted copies of challan to the undersigned. This will be without prejudice to any other action that may be initiated under the provisions of law for which the establishment as rendered itself liable. Issued under my seal & signature on 10.3.2004 at Rajkot." 12. On reading the order dated 10.3.2004, it emerges that in the first paragraph, the petitioner has mentioned factual details about the summons dated 9.9.2003 which was issued to the respondent establishment and it is also recorded that the respondent establishment was informed that if they failed to attend the proceedings then the matter will be proceeded ex-parte. Except the details of the intimation, nothing is mentioned in the said first paragraph of the order and the second paragraph merely records the dates on which the hearing was adjourned to, from time to time. In the third paragraph of the order, the petitioner has recorded the details about the appearance of the learned advocate on behalf of the respondent establishment. The relevant paragraph is paragraph No. 4. When the said paragraph is examined and read, it emerges that there is no reference of any document or any evidence on the basis of which the observation with regard to financial integrality is made in the order. The petitioner has observed in the order that:- "...I have come to the conclusion that all the three units are different for name shake only as financial integrity is found thereon account of mutual dependency due to sharing in capital account and are turn by the members of Hindu Undivided Family...." 13. The petitioner has observed in the order that:- "...I have come to the conclusion that all the three units are different for name shake only as financial integrity is found thereon account of mutual dependency due to sharing in capital account and are turn by the members of Hindu Undivided Family...." 13. From the said observations, it comes out that there is no reference about any material or any document or any details on the basis of which the said conclusion is reached by the petitioner. The petitioner has not mentioned in the order as to whether he had taken into account any document, any books of account, any pass book of the banks of any of the three establishments, any agreements or any other material. He has also not mentioned anything as to whether he had noticed any relevant details and if yes, which relevant details he had noticed which lead him to the conclusion that the establishments are different only for name sake and actually, they are one and the same and intertwined and liable to be clubbed together. From perusal of the order, it comes out that the petitioner has merely picked up the phrases from the decided cases/judicial precedents to describe the relevant factors which are ordinarily taken into consideration while deciding the issue related to clubbing of different establishments for the purpose of deciding applicability of the Act. However, there is no discussion about any material or evidence in light of which such conclusion is recorded. The order does not give out as to which material was before the petitioner and which material or details he had relied on and what had he taken into consideration. 13.1 In short, the order passed by the petitioner is cryptic, non-speaking and unreasoned order without there being any discussion or reference of the material taken into account and/or contentions raised by present respondent. 13.2 Actually, on examination of the order, it appears that there was no material, no record, no document before the petitioner in connection with the respondent establishment or other two establishments which could have been relied on and he had not examined any material. Otherwise, the authority would have made reference of the material and details found by him from the material before him. Otherwise, the authority would have made reference of the material and details found by him from the material before him. Complete absence of any reference and any discussion with regard to the material gives out that the order is passed without taking into account relevant and necessary facts and/or material. It is apparent that the order is passed mechanically and without application of mind to the relevant facts and circumstances. 14. As mentioned earlier, it was the said order dated 10.3.2004 which was carried in appeal before the learned Tribunal and as mentioned earlier while passing the order dated 11.8.2010 even the learned Tribunal noticed above discussed defects in the order dated 10.3.2004 and the learned Tribunal observed, inter alia, that:- "...Except this no findings have been recorded to show that there was financial or functional integrity nor any discussion was made to this effect...." 15. The learned Tribunal has rightly reached to the conclusion that such order, which is bereft of any discussion and reasons/findings and which makes it clear that any material was not considered by the authority before passing the order dated 10.3.2004 was not sustainable and deserved to be set-aside. Having reached such conclusion, learned Tribunal has rightly set aside the order dated 10.3.2004. 16. Now, the petitioner who passed the said cryptic, non-speaking and unreasoned order dated 10.3.2004 has brought under challenge the order passed by the learned Tribunal. However, there is nothing on record - much less in the order - on strength of which the petitioner can defend his order and/or assail learned Tribunal's findings and the order. The learned counsel for the petitioner tried but failed to show any infirmity or illegality or arbitrariness or any error of law and/or facts. The learned counsel for the petitioner also failed to show any thing from the order dated 10.3.2014 to support the submission that the said order should be restored. The learned counsel for the petitioner could not refute that the order dated 10.3.2004 is a non-speaking order without reason and it is a cryptic order without any discussion and/or without any reference to any relevant material. She could not contend that the order is well reasoned order and final decision is supported by cogent reasons which are based on relevant facts and material on record which is referred to and discussed in the order. She could not contend that the order is well reasoned order and final decision is supported by cogent reasons which are based on relevant facts and material on record which is referred to and discussed in the order. She could not refute the fact that the order is bereft of any details and reasons. Even on plain reading of the order, it is apparent and clear that the order is not sustainable and is rightly set aside by learned Tribunal. 17. There is no discussion much less finding of fact as regards the geographical location, proximity of the units, commonness of the ownership and/or the commonness of employees, financial dependency, unit of products and any finding of fact that upon non-existence of one unit, others cannot survive, etc. Without considering the said aspects and without discussing availability or absence of any evidence with regard to the said aspect, the petitioner decided to pass the said order. 18. The unreasoned, non-speaking and cryptic order dated 10.3.2004 passed by the petitioner could not have been sustained and is rightly set aside by the learned Tribunal. The order dated 11.8.2010 passed by the learned Tribunal does not call for any interference. The petitioner has failed to make out any ground to support and justify the challenge against the order passed by the learned Tribunal. The petition fails. For the aforesaid reasons and foregoing discussion, the petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged.