IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.9418 of 1990 (O&M) Date of decision:01.04.2011 M/s Hein Lehmann (India) Limited ....Petitioner versus The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Haryana ....Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. A.P.Bhandari, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. A.P.S.Sandhu, Advocate, for the respondent. ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No. 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? Yes. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? Yes. ---- K.Kannan, J. (Oral) 1. The issue involved in this case is whether an establishment which is incorporated as a subsidiary of a parent Company for a separate division connected to the activity of the parent Company could claim exemption from the applicability of the EPF Act during the 'infancy period' by claiming that its incorporation must be taken as establishment of a new Company and not merely as a branch or a subsidiary of the parent Company. The Commissioner took the view that the petitioner Civil Writ Petition No.9418 of 1990 (O&M) - 2 - establishment was not a new establishment but it was a part and parcel of the earlier establishment and hence, not entitled to a fresh 'infancy period' under the EPF Act. I do not find any interim order was passed at any point of time and merely notice had been issued at one stage on 08.09.1991. This Court has also directed that all proceedings against the petitioner shall continue. 2. The counsel for the petitioner states that since passing of the impugned order, there has been an amendment in the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act of 1952 constituting a appellate Tribunal to challenge the order passed under Section 7-A. The counsel states that the writ petition could be directed to be sent to the appellate Tribunal for disposal in accordance with law. The writ petition is not any longer maintainable before this Court and the appropriate remedy, therefore, shall not be through judicial intervention under Article 226. The writ petition is, consequently, dismissed but the petitioner shall be at liberty to prefer an appeal under Section 7-D within 30 days from the receipt of the copy of the order. 3. Section 7-D had been challenged on the constitutional vires but it was repulsed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sumedico Corporation and another Versus Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-1999 LAB.I.C. 2626. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had in that case, while setting aside the observations of the High Court on merits, held that such directions would not have any relevance and the parties would be at liberty to secure the remedy in the statutory appeal for decision on the question on merits Civil Writ Petition No.9418 of 1990 (O&M) - 3 - 4. In terms of Section 7D and in line with the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above case, the writ petition is dismissed. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 01.04.2011 sanjeev