LexM/S. RAJASTHAN PREM KRISHAN GOODS TRANSPORT CO. versus REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, NEW DELHI AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
M/S. RAJASTHAN PREM KRISHAN GOODS TRANSPORT CO.
A
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
B
c
D
E
10 partners. Beforehand, the third respondent-Transport Co. stood com-
posed of 13 persons, 10 of \Vhon1 composed the "Goods Transport Co.
10
•
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
1
H
2
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.
A
HELD : 1. The finding recorded by the Regional Provident Fund
B
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]
D
E
F
G
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 constitutedExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.