Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the two partnership firms could be treated as one establishment for the purpose of coverage under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, on the basis of common ownership, common premises and common business objects.
Analysis: Coverage of establishments under the Provident Fund Act depends on whether the units form one integrated whole, and the relevant inquiry is functional integrality. The decisive test is whether the later unit can survive independently if the other unit is closed, and whether the employer has kept the units distinct in matters of finance and employment. Common partners, common premises and similarity of business by themselves do not establish functional integrality. The authority below relied mainly on common management and location, without examining the controlling question of mutual dependence and survivability.
Conclusion: The clubbing of the two firms as one establishment was unsustainable, and the impugned order was set aside with a direction for fresh inquiry.
Ratio Decidendi: For determining whether units constitute one establishment under the Provident Fund Act, common ownership or common premises is insufficient by itself; the governing test is functional integrality, namely whether one unit can reasonably survive without the other.