Branch and establishment unity under provident fund law depends on common ownership, control, and functional integrality.

Section 2-A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 treats different branches or departments of an establishment as one unit where the real relationship shows unity of ownership, management, control, employment and purpose. Applying those factors, the Coimbatore factory was found to be a branch of the Chalakudy establishment because both units made the same product, were owned by the same company, shared management and financial control, and showed functional and financial dependency. Separate registration, licences and accounts were not decisive on those facts. The factory was therefore covered under the Act.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Coimbatore factory was only a branch or department of the Chalakudy establishment so as to be treated as part of the same establishment under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952.

Analysis: Section 2-A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 deems different departments or branches of an establishment, whether in the same place or different places, to be part of the same establishment. The question whether a unit is a branch depends on the true relationship between the units, assessed on factors such as unity of ownership, management and control, functional integrality, unity of employment, and general unity of purpose. On the facts found, both factories manufactured the same product, were owned by the same company, had common management and financial control, shared accounts and transfer of funds, and showed functional and financial dependency. Separate registration, licences, and accounts were not decisive on these facts.

Conclusion: The Coimbatore factory was correctly held to be a branch of the Chalakudy establishment and was liable to be covered under the Act.

---