M/S. RAJASTHAN PREM KRISHAN GOODS TRANSPORT CO. v. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, NEW DELHI AND ORS. MAY 20, 1996 [M.M. PUNCHH! AND K.S. PARl?OORNAN, .l.J.] Labour Law : Eniployees' Provfdent Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 : Busines.r establislunent-Tivo enlities–Rcgional Provident F1u1d Conunis- sioner after thorough enqui1)', found there ivas unity of plll]JDse between the tivo entities as their place of business1 nianagenient ('!1d telephone nunibe1:\· i·vere conunon-A ccordingly, R.P.F. Conunissioner ordered clubbing of the two e11titics together as a si11gle establishme11t under the E.P.F. Act-Heid : Finding of R.P.F. Conunissioncr ivas essentially one of fact-Hence, in the absence of any legal bar against s~tch fin din& no inte1fcrence called for. The appellant-Goods Transport Co. was constituted co1nposing of c
10 partners. Beforehand, the third respondent-Transport Co. stood com- posed of 13 persons, 10 of \Vhon1 composed the "Goods Transport Co. Their place of business, address, telephone numbers and management \Vere common. From this, it was inferred by the Inspectorate functioning under the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 that there \\'as unity of O\\'nership, management and control, employ- ment, finance and general purpose to justify both the units being treated F as a single establishment under the Act, as they constituted one integrated \\'hole.
The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, after thorough en- quiry, ordered clubbing of the two entities together. The application of the G appellant under Section 19 of the Act to the Central Government was dismissed. The \vrit petition against the orders of the Central (;overnment \\'as dismissed by the High Court in linzine. Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred the present appeal.
Dis1nissing the appeal, this Court HELD : 1. The finding recorded by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner is that there is unity of purpose on each count inasmuch as the place of business is common, the management is common, the letterheads bear the same telephone numbers and 10 partners of the appellant are common out of the 13 partners of the third respondent. The trucks plied by the two entities are owned by the partners and are being hired through both the units. The respective employees engaged by the two entities when added together, bring the integrated entities within the grip of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952; so is the finding. Now, this finding is essentially one of fact or on legitimate inferences drawn from facts. Nothing could be suggested on behalf of the C appellant as to why could the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner not pierce the veil and read between the lines within the outwardl'iness of the two a p parents, nor any legal bar was pointed out by the appellant as to \\'hy the vie\\'S of the Regional provident Fund Commissioner, as affirn1ed by the Central Government, be overturned. [3-H, 4-A-C]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4980 of 1980. From the Judgment ·and Order dated 28.1.83 of the Delhi High Court in C.W. No. 184 of 1983. H.K. Puri for the Appellant.
Tara Chand Sharma and C.V. Subba Rao for the Respondents. M.C. Dhingra for Respondent No. 3. The Judgment of the Cuurt was delivered by PUNCHHI, J. This appeal by special leave is against a liminc dis- missal of a \Vrlt petition preferred by the appellant before the Delhi High Court.
The appellant before us is M/s. Rajasthan Prem Krisban Goods Transport Co. (in short hereafter lo be referred as 'the goods transport Company'). The concerned party with it is the 3rd respondent – M/s. Rajasthan Prem Krishan Transport Co. – (in short hereafter referred to as the Transport Company). The appellant is aggrieved against the act'Lon and H orckrs of the authorities established under Employees provident Fund and RAJ. PREM KRISHAN GOODS TPT. CO. v. REG NL PROVIDENT FUND COivfMR. [PUNCJ-IHI, J .J 3 Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short 'the Act') in treating the A appellant and the 3rd respondent as one and the same entity, holding the ostensible separate existence of these two as artificial and non-existent. Significantly, both these companies are partnership concerns. Ac- cording to the appellant, 'the Goods Transport Co.' was constituted on 16.4.1976, composing of 10 partners. Beforehand, the third respondent, that is, 'the Transport Co.' stood composed of 13 persons; 10 of whom compose the 'Goods Transport Company'. Their place of business and address is common, being Behind Fire Brigade, S.P. Mukherjee Marg, Delhi. Their telephone numbers are also common. The management of the two was also common. From this, it was inferred by the Inspectorate functioning under the aforementioned Act that there \Vas unity of ownership, management, supervision and control, employment, finance and general purpose to justify both the units being treated as a single establishment under the Act, as, they constituted one integrated whole.
c It is beyond dispute that if the two supposed ent1t1es were to be D tr9ated separate, the provisions of the Act would not apply. But, if they be treated as one, the provisions of the Act would apply. It can otherwise be not disputed that on proper facts being established, two apparently separate entities can be clubbed into one to carry out the purposes of the Act and a fraudulent device adopted by a designing management can be E exploded and matters put to their proper perspective.
The appellant and the third respondent received the requisite notices to show cause why the provisions of the Act be not made applicable treating both of them as one. The appellant and the third respondent showed cause. Their main defence was that these entities for the purpose of the Income-tax Act, were being treated separate and that fact should g7vern the fate to keep these entities separate and singular. The Regional Ptovident Fund Commissioner, after thorough enquiry, ordered on 31.3.1978, clubbing of the two entities together, with effect from 1.6.1976. Tpe application of the appellant under Section 19 of the Act to the Central G Government was dismissed on 7.12.1982, upholding the order of the Regional provident Fund Commissioner. The writ petition against the orders of the Central Government was dismissed in limine. This is how the appellant is before us.
The finding recorded by the Regional Prm,dent Fund Commissioner H is that there is unity of purpose on each count inasmuch as the place of business is common, the management is common, the letterheads bear the same telephone numbers and 10 partners of the appellant are common out of the 13 partners of the third respondent. The trucks plied by the two entities are owned by the partners and are being hired through both the units. The respective employees engaged by the two entiilies when added together, bring the integrated entities within the grip of the Act; so is the finding. Now, this finding is essentially one of fact or on legitimate inferen- ces drawn from facts. Nothing could be suggested on behalf of the appel- lant as lo why could the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner not pierce the veil and read between the lines within the outwardliness of the two apparents, No legal bar could be pointed out by the learned counsel as to why the views of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, as affirmed by the Central Government, be overturned.
For the reasons aforestated, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed but without any order as to costs. V.S.S. Appeal dismissed.