https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183044 Common ownership, common premises and similar business objects do not by themselves justify treating two partnership firms as one establishment under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952; the controlling test is functional integrality, including whether one unit can survive independently if the other closes and whether finance and employment remain distinct. Reliance only on common management and location, without examining mutual dependence and survivability, is insufficient. On that basis, the clubbing of the firms as one establishment was held unsustainable and the matter was directed for fresh inquiry. en-us Wed, 05 Jun 1996 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 26 May 2016 18:23:49 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183044 Common ownership, common premises and similar business objects do not by themselves justify treating two partnership firms as one establishment under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952; the controlling test is functional integrality, including whether one unit can survive independently if the other closes and whether finance and employment remain distinct. Reliance only on common management and location, without examining mutual dependence and survivability, is insufficient. On that basis, the clubbing of the firms as one establishment was held unsustainable and the matter was directed for fresh inquiry. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 05 Jun 1996 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=183044