1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. Letters Patent Appeal No. 159/2007 in WRIT PETITION NO. 1889/2005 (Decided) (M/s Honda Services, through its Ex-Proprietor, Nagpur .vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Nagpur ) with Letters Patent Appeal No. 167/2007 in WRIT PETITION NO. 1760/2005 (Decided) (M/s Aditya Auto Agencies, Nagpur .vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Nagpur ) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders. and Registrar's orders Dr. Anjan De, Advocate for Appellants Dr. R.S. Sundaram, Advocate for Respondent. .......... CORAM : S.A. BOBDE & P.D. KODE, JJ. DATED : DECEMBER 1, 2010 Heard. These Letters Patent Appeals are preferred against the judgment and order dated 12.3.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge allowing the writ petitions filed by the respondent -Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and directing fresh inquiry under Section 7-A of the Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous 2 Provisions Act, 1952 ( for short “the Act”) be held. In an inquiry under Section 7-A of the Act, the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner held that the appellant which is a Service Centre of M/s Hero Honda Motors along with M/s Aditya Auto Agencies which maintains the showroom and sells the motorcycles, are together covered under the provisions of the Act since there is functional integrality between the two establishments. The Appellate Authority under Section 7-I of the Act, however, reversed the finding and held that there is no functional integrality between the two establishments and being independent establishment, are not governed by the provisions of the Act since the number of workmen in the establishment is below the prescribed limit. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner questioned the order of the Appellate Authority before the learned Single Judge by way of writ petition. The learned Single Judge found that for proper appreciation of the issue, it was necessary for the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner under Section 7- A of the Act to go into the question of relationship between the two establishments as established by the various agreements which are said to require M/s Aditya Auto Agencies to have a service centre. The learned Single Judge, therefore, directed that the matter be remanded back to produce the dealership agreement and other agreements with M/s Honda Services and directed the authority to consider the matter afresh. Dr. Sundaram, learned counsel for the 3 respondent raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the appeal because according to the learned counsel an order of remand is not a judgment within the meaning of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent and, therefore, the appeal would not lie. Dr. De, learned counsel for the appellant rightly relied on the observation of the Supreme Court in the case of Shah Babulal Khimji .vs. Jayaben – AIR 1981 Supreme Court 1786 and submitted that the Supreme Court has clearly held vide a paragraph 123 that Order 43 Rule 1 applies to internal appeals in the High Court and apart from it such an order even on merits contains the quality of finality and would, therefore, be a judgment within the meaning of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent and, therefore, appealable. It is clear that the present order is an order covered by Order 43 Rule 1 Clause (u) being an order of remand. We, therefore, reject the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the respondent and held the appeal is tenable. Dr. De, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the judgment of the learned Single Judge is liable to be interfered with because the learned Single Judge has merely directed the remand without even setting aside the order of the Appellate Authority or giving finding that the order of the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner under Section 7-A of the Act is right or wrong. The learned counsel further submitted that it should have been also noticed that the respondent did not even ask for copies of the agreement. Dr. Sundaram, learned counsel for the respondent, however, submitted that the appellant was directed to produce all 4 the relevant documents before the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner under Section 7-A which it did not produce. However, we do not propose to decide this controversy. It is a fact that the learned Single Judge has not in express terms passed an order setting aside the order of the Appellate Authority or making any express comment on the correctness or otherwise of the order passed under Section 7-A of the Act. However, having regard to the circumstances of the case and the order of remand passed by the learned Single Judge, it is implicit that the learned Single Judge was not satisfied with the finding of the appellate Authority on the issue and therefore, directed that the matter be remanded back with a further direction to consider the documents relating to agreement etc. Having regard to the importance of the documents such as dealership agreement etc. on the issue of functional integrality of the two establishments, we see no reason to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. The Letters Patent Appeals are, therefore, dismissed. Dr. De, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that after remand the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner has passed an order under Section 7-A of the Act after holding a fresh inquiry and that order needs to be set aside because it contains certain error. Dr. Sundaram, learned counsel for the respondent rightly pointed out that the said order is appealable under Section 7-I of the Act and the appellant is not entitled to make any comment on the said order before this Court at this stage. We agree with the submission 5 of Dr. Sundaram and reject the contention of the appellant in this regard. JUDGE JUDGE halwai