Usha Textiles vs Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and Others

H.B. Chalapathi, J.—This writ petition is filed to quash the order dated June 3, 1981 (annexure P-16), issued by the second respondent.

The petitioner is a registered partnership firm. One of the partners, namely, Kamal Dalmia, purchased a building situated at Kashmir Road, Verka, District Amritsar, and partitioned the said premises into four separate sheds and in May, 1976, he wrote four separate lease deeds, namely, to Suman Textiles, Amritsar, and B.S. Enterprises, Amritsar, Bhagirath Textiles, Amritsar, and N. R. Textiles, Amritsar, and regular lease deeds were also executed on February 2, 1977. Power looms were installed in each one of the three sheds and the shed leased toN. R. Textiles, Amritsar, comprised the building as well as the machinery which had been installed, namely, firn winding machine, warping machine and twisting machine. The Textiles Commissioner, Bombay, under the provisions of the Textile (Production by Power Looms) Control Order, 1956, granted permits in the name of Suman Textiles of Amritsar for nine power looms, Bhushan Kumar for nine power looms and Bhagirath Textiles, Amritsar, for eight power looms. On February 21, 1978, the Factory Inspector and the Provident Fund Inspector visited the factory premises separately and the Chief Inspector of Factories directed to register the petitioner-concern saying that the employees strength was more than ten and to that a suitable reply was given. The Provident Fund Inspector, by his letter dated January 7, 1977, directed the petitioner-concern to produce the accounts saying that the strength of the, employees of the petitioner-concern was 31. Suitable replies were given that the units were separate and independent unit and one has nothing to do with the other. Thereafter, the second respondent held an enquiry and by his order dated June 3, 1981, held that the petitioner establishment was covered under the provisions of the Employees'' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, and directed the petitioner to pay the contribution. Challenging the said order, the petitioner filed the above writ petition.

There is no dispute that the property was purchased in the name of Usha Textiles, Amritsar, and for the purpose of business the said Usha Textiles divided the property into four units and leased out the same to the firms, namely, Suman Textiles, Amritsar, B. S. Enterprises, Amritsar, Bhagirath Textiles, Amritsar, and N. R. Textiles, Amritsar, vide lease deed annexure P-1. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, all the four units are separate and have nothing to do with Usha Textiles. In all the four lease deeds the terms and conditions are the same. It is pertinent to reproduce the clauses in all these four lease deeds. Clause 1 reads as follows :

"The lessor, K. Dalmia, in possession, has let out his nine power looms in working condition to the lessee, at a monthly rent of Rs. 400."

Clause 4 reads thus :

"That the workers already working on these looms will be treated as the employees of the lessee in all respects under the various labour laws, the lessee will be fully responsible for them."

The fourth lease deed is in favour of N. R. Textiles, Amritsar. The petitioner concern let out to this firm one firn winding machine, one warping machine and one twisting machine along with reeling machine and drafting frames. Clause 4 of the said lease deed reads as follows :

"That the workers already working on these machines will be treated as the employees of the lessee in all respects under the various labour laws, the lessee shall be fully responsible for them."

Thus, it is clear that the employees engaged by the petitioner were treated as employees of the lessee firm. All the units are situated in the same premises. The petitioner has not shown that the lessee partner firms are different from the petitioner firm. The total number of workers in all the units were engaged by the petitioner firm and according to the lease deeds the workers were also assigned to the lessees. There cannot be any doubt that this was a (sic.) device adopted by the petitioner to circumvent the provisions of law. On a close reading of the documents there cannot be any doubt that all the four firms constitute only one unit. Annexure P-16 is the order of the Central Government dated June 23, 1981. On a consideration of the entire material placed before the authority, the authority held that the establishment has been covered under the Act and is an industry engaged in the manufacture of textiles and the employees are the employees of the petitioner but for the purpose of convenience their services were also placed at the disposal of the lessees under the various lease deeds along with the power looms. As already pointed out, the petitioner has not placed before the Court as to who are the partners. On a consideration of the material before me, I am of the opinion that all the four units in fact should be treated as one unit only and as the strength of the employees on the establishment exceeds the number prescribed. The number of employees is 30. Therefore, the petitioner''s unit is covered by the provisions of the Employees'' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. I do not, therefore find any illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the authorities.

The writ petition is, therefore, devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.