M/S TORINO LABORATORIES PVT. LTD. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [2025] 8 S.C.R. 174 · Decided: 15-07-2025 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.V. VISWANATHAN · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2025] 8 S.C.R. 174 : 2025 INSC 849
M/s Torino Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. 
v. 
Union of India & Ors.
(Civil Appeal No. 9540 of 2018)
15 July 2025
[K.V. Viswanathan* and Joymalya Bagchi, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Whether the EPF Authorities were justified in treating the appellant 
and the Respondent No.3 as one unit for the purpose of the 
Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952.
Headnotes†
Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions 
Act, 1952 – s.2A – Establishment to include all departments 
and branches – Appellant’s unit manufactured tablets and 
syrups, while the Respondent No.3 manufactured injections 
and capsules – Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (APFC) 
held that the appellant was part and parcel of the Respondent 
No.3 for the purpose of applicability of the EPF Act on account of 
having various common factors inter alia unity of management 
with commonality of some Directors belonging to the same 
HUF; unity of finance; both the units dealing with products of 
pharmaceutical industry, etc. – Order upheld by the Appellate 
Tribunal and High Court:
Held: Appellant and respondent No.3 were engaged in the same 
industry i.e. pharmaceutical; they carried on business in premises 
built on contiguous plots of land; shared common telephone and 
facsimile numbers; had common website and e-mail IDs; their 
Registered Office/Head Office and administrative office were the 
same; both employed common security to guard the premises; there 
was unity of management inasmuch as while the two brothers were 
Directors of respondent No.3; one of them was also the Director 
of the appellant while another brother and wife of one the brothers 
were Directors in the appellant Company – There was also unity 
of finance inasmuch as the HUF of one the brothers and his family 
members funded both the companies – These findings by the APFC 
cumulatively establish beyond doubt that the two entities were 
* Author
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 
175
M/s Torino Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India & Ors.
rightly treated as common for the purpose of the EPF Act – Plea 
of the appellant that since the appellant and respondent No.3 are 
two different juristic entities thus, s.2A cannot be applied and also, 
the theory of clubbing cannot be invoked is rejected – Authorities 
justified in seeking remittance of the dues from September 1995 – 
No merit in the appeal – Theory of clubbing. [Paras 12, 31, 34-37]
Theory of clubbing – Determination of unity of ownership; 
unity of management and control; features demonstrating the 
presence of functional integrality – Tests for:
Held: No absolute and invariable test can be laid down for all cases – 
The real purpose of the test is to find out the true relation between 
the Parts, Branches and Units – If in their true relation they constitute 
one integrated whole, it could be said that establishment is one and 
if not, they are to be treated as separate units – Each case has to 
be decided on its own peculiar facts, with regard to the scheme 
and object of the statute under consideration and in the context 
of the claim – In a given case, unity of ownership, management 
and control may be the important test, while in certain other cases 
Functional Integrality or general unity may be the determinative 
consideration – In some instances, unity of employment could be 
the most vital test – The employer/management’s own conduct in 
mixing up or not mixing up the capital, staff and management could 
in a given case be a significant pointer – Mere separate registration 
under the different statutes cannot be a basis to claim that the 
units are separate – Similarly, maintenance of separate accounts 
and independent financial statement is also not conclusive – Onus 
lies on the employer/management to lead necessary evidence to 
bring home their contention – Employees’ Provident Funds and 
Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 – s.2A. [Para 34]
Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions 
Act, 1952 – s.2A – Establishment to include all departments 
and branches – Plea of the appellant that since the appellant 
and respondent No.3 are two different juristic entities thus, 
s.2A cannot be applied and also, the theory of clubbing cannot 
be invoked:
Held: Rejected – While s.2A sets out that the establishment will 
include all departments and branches it does not deal with a scenario 
as to the tests for determining whether two juristic entities are set up 
as an arti

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.