Separate establishments under provident fund law require unity of control, management and functional integrality, not mere shared premises.

Separate statutory registration, separate employees, separate accounts and absence of financial interdependence or common management generally negate a finding that two business concerns are one establishment under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. The note explains that the relevant test is unity of ownership, management, control and functional integrality, assessed through indicators such as common partners, common supervision, shared accounts and connected work. On the stated facts, mere occupation of the same building and occasional use of vehicles on payment were insufficient to club the units. Employer liability under Section 2(e) depends on ultimate control over the establishment, so clubbing the employees of both concerns could not be sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Evans Food Corporation and Super Traders constitute one establishment for the purposes of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952; (ii) Whether the petitioner is liable as the employer under Section 2(e) of the Act.

Issue (i): Whether Evans Food Corporation and Super Traders constitute one establishment for the purposes of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952.

Analysis: The test is whether the two units have such unity of ownership, management, control and functional integrality that they form one integrated whole. Relevant indicators include common employment, common partners, common accounts, financial interdependence, common supervision, use of common machinery or staff, and whether the work of one unit is connected with or auxiliary to the other. Here, the two concerns had separate employees, separate account books, separate statutory registrations, no financial assistance between them, and no common partners. The fact that they functioned from the same building and that one used the other's vehicles on payment did not, by itself, establish a single establishment.

Conclusion: Evans Food Corporation and Super Traders are separate and distinct establishments and do not constitute one establishment.

Issue (ii): Whether the petitioner is liable as the employer under Section 2(e) of the Act.

Analysis: Under Section 2(e), liability depends on who has ultimate control over the affairs of the establishment. Since Evans Food Corporation and Super Traders were separate establishments, the petitioner could not be treated as having ultimate control over both units for the purpose of fastening liability for the combined employee strength. The demand made by clubbing the employees of both concerns therefore could not stand. The availability of a remedy under Section 19-A did not justify refusing relief in the circumstances of the case.

Conclusion: The petitioner is not liable as the employer on the basis of clubbing the two establishments.

Final Conclusion: The demand order was quashed and the respondents were directed to treat the two concerns as separate establishments for the purposes of the Act.

Ratio Decidendi: Separate statutory registration, separate employees, separate accounts, absence of financial interdependence and absence of common management or control negate a finding that two business concerns are one establishment under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952.

---