AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri, J.—The writ petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to the proceedings dated 26-2-1986 in A.P./I3637/ SRO/BUF/GNT 11/86/235/278 of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-(II, Guntur and to quash the same.
The facts may briefly be stated The petitioner is a partnership firm which came into existence on 23-10-1967. The partners of the firm are (I) Alapati Clialapathi Rao and (2) R.V. Narasimita Rao. The said Ala-pati Clialapathi Rao along with his two sons entered into partnership evidenced by partnership deed dated 29-3-1983 and constructed a theatre by name Srinivasa Picture Palace. For purposes of the provisions of the Employees'' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short ''the Act''), the Area Provident Fund Inspector informed the petitioner to implement the provisions of the Employees Provident Fund and Employees Deposit Linked Insurance Scheme from 1-12-1983 and Employees Family Pension Scheme from 1.11.1985. The intimation was given on 28.11.1985. The petitioner agitated the matter before the 1st respondent and requested for withdrawal of the coverage intimation. The 1st respondent, after conducting necessary enquiry found that u/s 2(a) of the Act the two theatres are part of the same establishment. It is the correctness of this order that is assailed in this writ petition.
Sri I. V. Narayana, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the theatres--Subbaraya Picture Palace and Srinivasa Picture Palace are two different legal entities being two separate partnerships, therefore, they cannot be treated as part of the same establishment u/s 2(a) of the Act. The learned counsel further contends that M/s. Srinivasa Picture Palace came into existence from 30.11.83 as such the provisions of Section 16(d) of the Act have no application for a period of five years, so in any event, the 1st respondent ought to have granted the infancy relief in respect of Srinivasa Picture Palace.
Sri Purushotham Reddy, the learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand submits that the 1st respondent has considered the test laid down by the Supreme Court for purposes of Section 2(a) of the Act and has correctly concluded that both the theatres formed part of the same establishment. This being a Question of fact, it cannot be interfered with by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
It is not disputed that if both the theatres are treated as part of the same establishment the coverage intimation is valid. In The Associated Cement Companies Limited, Chaibassa Cement Works, Jhinkpani Vs. Their Workmen, the Supreme Court laid down the test applicable for determining the true connection between the branches and the unit of the establishment. The 1st respondent has kept in mind these tests recorded a finding that there is unity of ownership management and control as well as functional integrity and unity of employment. It is true as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that these two theatres are two different partnership firms, but in reality and substance both of them controlled and managed by Alapati Chalapathi Rao. For purpose of application of the beneficial legislation intended for the benefits of the employees of the establishment such as provident fund, deposit linked insurance scheme, Family Pension Scheme etc., the courts will have to go behind the legal entity to discover the real management and control which alone can show as to who the real employer is. Where on a consideration of the facts behind the artificial legal entity it is found that the control and the management is held by an individual, then the Court is bound to take note of the same and hold that what appears to be two separate entities due to legal fiction are in fact part of the same management. In this view of the matter, I do not find any error of law apparent on the face of the record to call for interference of this Court in the impugned proceedings.
In regard to the second contention viz., benefits of Section 16(d) of the Act ought to have been given to Messrs. Srinivasa Picture Palace, it must be observed that once it is held that the theatre has to be treated as part of the same establishment, it cannot be treated as a new establishment to which alone the provisions of Section 16(d) of the Act are attracted.
In the result, the writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.