TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1994 (1) TMI 279
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bruary 28, 1989 (Exhibit P-18), made under Section 7-A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act ("the Act" for brevity) determined a sum of Rs. 1,08,911.65 as the employer's contribution and directed the petitioner to remit it. The Commissioner held that Evans and Super constitute one establishment and the number of workers employed by them together exceeds 20. The demand of the employer's contribution is for the period between January 1, 1982 to January 1, 1988. The petitioner who is the Managing Director of Evans impugns the order dated February 28, 1989 (Exhibit P-18). 2. Evans commenced its business in 1973, as a proprietary concern, of Evan Punnen, the petitioner. On Janaury 1, 1983, it was reco....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ning continued to be the customers of Super. (f) Super receives goods from Evans on credit. Against the above facts which suggest that the two business enterprises have many things in common, note the following facts: (i) The employees of Evans and Super are different. There is not a single common employee. Super pays for the use of vehicles of Evans, Therefore, the transport expenses are not common but distinct. (ii) The account books, registration under the Employees' State Insurance Act and assessment of tax of Super are separate. (iii) Super receives no finances, loans or advance from Evans. (iv) The distributors who carried on business with Evans before Super stepped in, paid part of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as part of the same establishment. The jurisdiction to decide the dispute whether the two or more establishments constitute one establishment or whether the Act applies to an establishment belongs under Section 19-A, to the Central Government. In this case, no such reference was ever made to the Central Government. Section 19-A has been substituted by Sections 20,21, and 22 of Act No. 33 of 1988, with effect from the date to be notified. No date has so far been notified. 6. The subject of the petitioner's business is manufacture of cattle feed. It is "any other establishment" within the meaning of Clause (b) of Sub-section (3) of Section 1. Originally, cattle-feed industry was not one of the industries to which the Act was applicabl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unni v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner [1974] ILR 1 Ker 11, lay down general tests to be applied in such cases. Where there are two establishments, branches or units, the true relationship between them must be such that they constitute one integrated whole. Facts of each case would determine the true relationship. The broad tests are unity of ownership, management and control, functional integrality, general unity and unity of employment. Whether all these tests are attracted or dnly some of them come into play would depend on the facts of individual cases. 11. P. Madhavan Thampi v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, (1978-II-LLJ-467) held that where the different units employed the same workers of the parent unit, the units use....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....icles and use of the premises. These facts prove the separate and distinct character of the establishments. 13. The features that make the two establishments distinct are separate account books, distinct employees, none of them being common, separate partners, none of them being common, and indices such as independent registration under the Employees' State Insurance Act, the Sales Tax Act and the Income-tax Act. The employees of Super do not perform any work for Evans. The fact that the partners of the two establishments belong to the same family has been strongly highlighted with the aid of the judgment in P. Madhavan Thampi, v. Regional Provident Fund Inspector (supra). The, mere fact that the partners belong to the same family ma....