Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 223 (RAJ)

Venus Enterprises v. Employee Provident Fund

2018-01-17

M.N.BHANDARI

body2018
JUDGMENT : M.N. BHANDARI, J. 1. By this writ petition, a challenge is made to the order dated 16.7.2004 passed by the Commissioner, Employees' Provident Fund under section 7-A of the Employees' Provident Fund & Misc. Provisions Act, 1952 (for short 'the Act of 1952') and order dated 22.11.2010 passed by the Employees' Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order passed by the Commissioner. 2. Learned counsel submits that due to relationship of father and son, clubbing of two different establishments has been made. The aforesaid cannot be a ground to club two different establishments having no connection with each other. In view of the aforesaid, impugned order passed by the Commissioner under section 7-A of the Act of 1952 so as the order passed by the appellate tribunal deserves to be set aside. Reference of the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in the case of "Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Mangalore v. B Ganapathy Bhandarkar", reported in 2003-III-LLJ 100 has been given. 3. I have considered the submissions and perused the record. 4. It is a case where on a complaint made by the employees, enquiry was conducted by the respondents. It was found that two establishments are managed by the son and father and, therein, the product of one establishment is sold by other. Even the employees were transferred from one establishment to another apart from a common Accountant for their establishments. Taking into consideration the aforesaid material came during the enquiry, impugned order was passed by the Commissioner. The petitioner challenged the order thereupon before the appellate tribunal and the appeal therein has been dismissed finding not only relationship between the holders of two establishments but the transfer of the employees from one establishment to another and even two establishments are interconnected on location besides financial transactions as vouchers for it were produced thus it is not a case where clubbing of two establishments is solely based on the relations of the two persons but is based on other material also. It has been detailed out by the appellate tribunal. It has relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of "The Associated Cement Companies Ltd., Chaibasa Cement Works Jhinkpani v. Their Workmen", reported in AIR 1960 SC 56 . 5. It has been detailed out by the appellate tribunal. It has relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of "The Associated Cement Companies Ltd., Chaibasa Cement Works Jhinkpani v. Their Workmen", reported in AIR 1960 SC 56 . 5. In view of the above, I do not find that a case is made out to interfere in the impugned orders. It is more so when detailed finding of fact has been recorded by the Commissioner while passing the impugned order under section 7A of the Act of 1952. 6. So far as the judgment in the case of B Ganapathy Bhandarkar (supra) is concerned, it does not apply on the facts of this case. Therein, clubbing of establishments is based only on common ownership. It is not a case where clubbing of two establishments is solely based on common ownership but finding other material. Hence, no case is made out to cause interference in the impugned orders. Hence, writ petition is dismissed.