IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4649 of 2010 Employees Provident Funds Organization Through The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Sub- Regional Office, Adampur Chowk, Bhagalpur. Petitioner. Versus 1. The Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal Through Its Registrar, 60, Skylark Building, 7th Floor, Nehru Place, New Delhi 2. M/S Rudralaya, Bhundarmal Lane, Sonapatti, Bhagalpur (Bihar) Through Its Proprietor Smt. Gyandhari Devi Kejriwal, W/O Late Mahavir Prasad Kejriwal 3. M/S Rudra Textiles, Bhundarmal Lane, Sonapatti, Bhagalpur (Bihar) Through Its Proprietor Shri Manoj Kumar Kejriwal 4. M/S Shree Hanuman Textiles, Bhudarmal Lane, Sonapatti, Bhagalpur (Bihar) Through Its Proprietor Shri Shankar Kumar Kejriwal, S/O Late Mahabir Prasad Kejriwal. Respondents. ------ 2. 07.7.2011. Heard Mr. Bhupendra Prasad Verma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. The Employees Provident Funds Organization is the petitioner before this Court and seeks quashing of the order dated 13.12.2006 passed by the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal in ATA No.43(3) of 2005 (M/s Rudralaya Vs. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner), ATA No.42(3) of 2005 (M/s Shree Rudra Textiles Vs. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner), and ATA No.44(3) of 2005 (Shree Hanuman Textiles Vs. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner) under section 7-I of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 2 1952, (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’). The facts of the case briefly stated is that the respondent nos.2 to 4 herein are proprietorship firm carrying on business of textiles on retail and wholesale basis. The establishments have different ownership and maintain separate books of account, file income tax return separately. The only common feature amongst the respondents is that the proprietors of the respective establishments happen to be wife and sons of Late Mahavir Prasad Kejriwal. Despite there being absence of any functional integrality amongst the firms, the Enforcement Officer recommended for clubbing all the three firms for the purpose of applicability of the Act and assessment, as in his opinion, there was commonness in interest and business and that the business had been segregated with the sole aim to defeat the provisions of the Act and for not allowing the benefits to be extended to the employees. The petitioner himself, in para-5 of the writ petition, has stated that as certain documents required from the establishment was not submitted, hence, on the basis of the materials collected, it was concluded that there was unity of ownership, geographical proximity and commonness in interest amongst the establishments. It is stated that it is 3 after arriving at such conclusion that the order dated 5.11.2004 was passed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner clubbing the three establishments in purported exercise of power vested under section 7A of the Act and holding the Act to be applicable. The order dated 5.11.2004 was the subject matter of appeal under section 7-I of the Act before the Appellate Tribunal constituted under the Act at New Delhi. The Tribunal after hearing the rival contentions was pleased to allow the appeals mainly on the grounds that the petitioner department had failed to place any evidence to indicate that there was any functional integrality amongst the establishments. Even in the writ petition, there is not a single document annexed which in any manner demonstrates a functional integrality amongst respondent nos.2 to 4. This court finds no reason to disagree with the decision of the Appellate Tribunal as contained in Annexure-3 in allowing the appeals of the respondent nos.2 to 4 herein. For the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is dismissed. ahk (Jyoti Saran, J.) 4