K. Premarajan, Proprietor V. The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner & Office-in Charge, Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Sub-Regional Office, Kannur and Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Ministry of Labour, Government of India, New Delhi and The Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi

WP(C)/23164/2010

AI Insights

The case involves K. Premarajan, the proprietor of M/s. Nina Boards, who challenged the orders under the Employees Provident Fund Act concerning the coverage of his establishment. The dispute arose when the Employees Provident Fund Organization (EPFO) combined the employee counts of M/s. Nina Boards and M/s. Appu Boards (managed by Premarajan's wife) to determine applicability under the Act. The EPFO's decision was based on evidence showing integrated operations between the two entities, despite their separate registrations for tax purposes. The tribunal and the High Court of Kerala upheld the EPFO's decision, emphasizing the functional integration over formal separations.

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 799097 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 29-06-2017
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Employees Provident Fund Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: THOMAS NELLIMOOTTIL
• Assessee Lawyers: DALE KURIEN
• Keywords: Employees Provident Fund; Establishment Coverage; Financial and Managerial Integrity
• Section: 7A

Judgement Text

"IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE THURSDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JUNE 2017/8TH ASHADHA, 1939 WP(C).No. 23164 of 2010 (U) ---------------------------- PETITIONER: ---------- K.PREMARAJAN, PROPRIETOR, M/S.NINA BOARDS, ANDOOR, PARASSINIKKADAVU, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.DALE P.KURIEN RESPONDENT(S): -------------- 1. THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER & OFFICE-IN CHARGE, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, SUB-REGIONAL OFFICE, KVR TOWER, KANNUR.670002. 2. EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, MINISTRY OF LABOUR, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI. 3. THE PROVIDENT FUND APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI. BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS MATHEW NELLIMOOTTIL,SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29-06-2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.V. WP(C).No. 23164 of 2010 (U) ---------------------------- APPENDIX PETITIONERS EXHIBITS: -------------------- P1; TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS/ORDER DATED 17/4/2004 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. P2; TRUE COPY OF P.F.TRIBUNAL ORDER DATED 9.12.2009. P3; ORIGINAL NOTARISED AFFIDAVIT DATED 18.3.2010 BY THE EMPLOYEES OF M/S NINA BOARDS. P4; TRUE COPY OF THE FACTORY LICENCE DATED 23.5.1995 OF M/S NINA BOARDS. P4(A) TRUE COPY OF TH SALES TAX REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE DATED 19/10/95 OF M/S NINA BOARDS. P4(B) TRUE COPY OF THE CENTRAL EXCISE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE DATED 16/4/2001 OF M/S NINA BOARDS. P4(C) TRUE COPY OF THE INCOME TAX RETURN FOR THE ASST. YEAR 1999-2000 OF M/S NINA BOARDS. P4(D) TRUE COPY OF THE INCOME TAX RETURN FOR THE ASST. YEAR 2000-2001 OF M/S NINA BOARDS. P4(E) TRUE COPY OF THE INCOME TAX RETURN FOR THE ASST.YEAR 2001-2002 OF M/S NINA BOARDS. P4(F) TRUE COPY OF THE SSI REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE DATED 19.2.2007 OF M/S NINA BOARDS. P4(G) TRUE COPY OF THE ELECTRICITY CONNECTION ORDER DATED 28/10/1995 OF M/S NINA BOARDS. P4(H) TRUE COPY OF THE ELECTRICITY BILL COVERING THE DATE OF RAID ON 31.3.2000. P4(I) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE MUSTER ROLL OF EMPLOYEES ON 31.3.2000 AND 8.4.2010 OF M/S NINA BOARDS. P4(J) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF WAGES REGISTER OF 31.3.2000 AND 8.4.2010 OF M/S NINA BOARDS. P5 ORIGINAL NOTARISED AFIDAVIT DATED 18/3/2010 SWORN IN BY WORKERS OF M/S APPU BOARDS. P6: TRUE COPY OF THE DATED 3.7.99 SWORN IN BY WORKERS OF M/S PPU BOARDS. P6(A) TRUE COPY OF THE SALES TAX REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE DATED 17/6/2000 OF M/S APPU BOARDS. P6(B) TRUE COPY OF THE PANCHAYAT LICENCE DATED 28/6/1999 OF M/S APPU BOARDS. WP(C).No. 23164 of 2010 (U) ---------------------------- P6(C) TRUE COPY OF THE INCOME TAX RETURN FOR THE ASST.YEAR 1999.2000 OF M/S APPU BOARDS. P6(D) TRUE COPY OF THE INCOME TAX RETURN FOR THE ASST. YEAR 2000-2001 OF M/S APPU BOARDS. P6(E) TRUE COPY OF THE INCOME TAX RETURN FOR THE ASST. YEAR 2001.2002 OF M/S APPU BOARDS. P6(F) TRUE COPY OF THE SS.S.I REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE DATED 19.2.2007 OF M/S APPU BOARDS. P6(G) TRUE COPY OF THE ELECTRICITY CONNECTION ORDER DATED 24/1/1999 OF M/S APPU BOARDS. P6(H) TRUE COPY OF THE ELECTRICITY BILL COVERING THE DATED OF SUPRISE VISIT N 20/3/2000 OF M/S APPU BOARDS. P6(I) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE MUSTER ROLL OF EMPLOYEES ON 28.3.2000 AND 8.4.2010 OF M/S APPU BOARDS. P6(J) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF WAGES REGISTER OF 31.3.2000 AND 8.4.2010 OF M/S APPU BOARDS. P7: ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED BY SRI.PREMARAJAN IN RESPECT OF HIS PROPRIETOR SHIP IN M/S NINA BOARDS AND OTHER DETAILS DATED 9.6.210. P8 TRUE COPY OF THE PARTNERSHIP DEED DATED 28.2.1996 OF M/S REGAM PLYWOODS. P8(A) TRUE COPY OF THE SUPPLEMENTARY DEED DATED 6/9/1996 RENAMING RAGAM PLYWOODS TO APPU BOARDS DATED 6/9/1996. P8(B) TRUE COPY OF THE RELEASE (DISSOLUTION DEED) DATED 5/10/1998 OF M/S APPU BOARDS. P9: TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 4/6/2010 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENT(S)' EXHIBITS ----------------------- R1(A) TRUE COPY OF THE MUSTER ROLL FOR THE PERIOD 8/1998 TO 5/1999 R1(B) TRUE COPY OF LICENCE GIVEN UNDER FACTORIES ACTG. R1(C) TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION UNDER SSI UNIT. R1(D) TRUE COPY OF THE REGISTER OF WAGES. R1(E) TRUE COPY OF SSI REGISTRATION AND THE COPY OF APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PROPRIETRIX OF /S APPU BOARDS. R1(F) TRUE COPY OF INVOICE OF M/S APPU BOARDS SIGNED BY SHRI.PREMARAJAN AS MANAGER. WP(C).No. 23164 of 2010 (U) ---------------------------- R1(G) TRUE COPY OF MUSTER ROLL FOR THE MONTH OF 12/1999 IN RESPECT OF M/S NINA BOARDS. R1(H) TRUE COPY OF WAGES REGISTER FOR 1/2000 IN RESPECT OF M/S APPU BOARDS. R1(I) TRUE COPY OF THE LOAN LIABILITY SUMMARY AND CASH IN HAND BOOK. /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE K.V. A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, J. ********************************************************************** W.P.(C) No.23164 of 2010 ********************************************************************** Dated this the 29th day of June, 2017 JUDGMENT This writ petition is filed challenging the orders passed under the Employees Provident Fund Act (for short, the “Act”). The petitioner, aggrieved by Ext.P1 order passed under Section 7A covering the establishment under the Act, approached the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi. The Tribunal affirmed the order passed by the statutory authority. The case of the petitioner is that for the purpose of the Act, the authority clubbed two different establishment entities. It is the case of the petitioner that he never employed more than 20 persons in the establishment. It is to be noted, the coverage is taking note of the employment in M/s.Nina Boards and M/s.Appu Boards. The petitioner is the proprietor of M/s.Nina Boards and M/s. Appu Boards is run by his wife. The Authoity found the records of both establishments kept in M/s.Nina Boards and the phone numbers are one and the same. It was also noted that there was no separate office for M/s. Appu Boards. It was also found out M/s.Nina Boards used to get work from M/s.Appu Boards. The W.P.(C) No.23164 of 2010 2 clear finding by the Authority was that Sri.Premarajan, the proprietor of M/s.Nina Boards is managing both units. Thus, the finding that there is a financial and managerial integrity, it was proposed to cover the establishment under the Act. 2. The finding entered by the authority is based on the appreciation of evidence and after adverting to the nature of functions of both units. Merely because, the two units have separate registration under the Sales Tax Act, it is not a matter for consideration to take such establishment out of the ambit of the Act. More emphasis is on the functional activities of both the units. If the functional activities are integrated, certainly, it has to be assumed that such creation of separate entities is only to take out of the purview of the Act. Having considered the nature of the orders passed by the authority and the Tribunal, there is no scope for interfering with the matter in as much as such findings are rendered on facts and beyond the scope of a judicial review to upset such finding on facts. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Sd/- A.MUHAMED MUSTAQUE, JUDGE ln "