One establishment test applied to two interdependent factories, bringing both units within provident fund coverage.

Separate concerns may be treated as one establishment where the objective material shows unity of ownership, management, supervision, finance, labour and functional integrity, together with common purpose and geographical proximity. Applying those tests, the two factories were found to be under members of the same family, located close to each other, and commercially interdependent because one unit's product served as the other's raw material. Separate registrations under other laws did not displace the real operational integration, and the earlier view that functional integrity was lacking was unsustainable. The units were therefore treated as one establishment and brought within coverage under Section 7A of the Employees' Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952.

---

---

Issues: Whether the two units constituted one establishment for the purposes of coverage under Section 7A of the Employees' Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952.

Analysis: The determining tests for treating separate concerns as one establishment include unity of ownership, management, supervision and control, finance, labour, functional integrity, common purpose and geographical proximity. On the facts, the two factories were under members of the same family, were situated in close proximity, and there was substantial and recurring commercial dependence, inasmuch as the product of one unit formed the raw material for the other. Separate registrations under other statutes did not negate the real operational integration. The earlier finding that the units lacked functional integrity was held to be unsustainable in the light of the objective material on record.

Conclusion: The two factories were rightly treated as one establishment and were liable to coverage under Section 7A of the Act.

---