WP(C) No.8417 of 2010 Page 1 of 3 UNREPORTABLE * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI W.P. (C) No.8417/2010 Date of Decision: December 20, 2010 M/S SHRI KRISHNA POLYURITHANE INDUSTRIES PVT LTD ..... Petitioner through Mr. Anil Sapra, Senior Advocate with Dr. Saif Mahmood, Mr. Maneesh Goyal & Mr. Sumant De, Advocates versus ASSTT. PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER & ANR ..... Respondents through Mr. R.C.Chawla, Advocate with Mr. Ankit Kohli, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MISS JUSTICE REKHA SHARMA 1. Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No 2. To be referred to the reporter or not? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the ‘Digest’? No REKHA SHARMA, J. (ORAL) This writ-petition has been preferred against the order of the Employees’ Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal (in short, called the ‘Tribunal’) dated August 31, 2010 dismissing an appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order passed under Section 7A of the Employees’ Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’). The case of the petitioner, namely M/s Shri Krishna Polyurethane Industries Private Limited is that the Regional Provident Fund WP(C) No.8417 of 2010 Page 2 of 3 Commissioner has made the Act applicable to the petitioner-firm by clubbing the employees of another firm, namely, M/s Legend Interiors on the basis that both the firms are running their business from the same premises; one of the Directors of the two firms, namely, Shri Sanjay is common; and, they are also using a common telephone. Aggrieved by the order so passed, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Tribunal which, as noticed above, was dismissed on August 31, 2010. It is submitted by learned Senior counsel for the petitioner that the Tribunal rather than dealing with the submission of the petitioner that the employees of the petitioner’s firm and the other firm, M/s Legend Interiors could not be clubbed, proceeded on the assumption that there were not two but three establishments which were running from the same premises and that if the employees of all the three firms are taken together, the petitioner-firm is covered by the Act. On a perusal of the impugned order, I do find that the Tribunal has proceeded on the basis that the three establishments are located at one place and they have a common control of the management. It is not disputed by learned counsel appearing for the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner that the order passed under Section 7A of the Act refers to only two and not three firms. In this view of the matter, the order of the Tribunal reflects non-application of mind. Hence, I deem it proper to remand the case to the Tribunal with the direction to examine the issue in the light of the submissions made by the petitioner and in the light of the facts as stated by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner. WP(C) No.8417 of 2010 Page 3 of 3 In view of the above, the order dated August 31, 2010 is set-aside with a direction to the Tribunal to reconsider the matter after hearing the parties. The parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on January 17, 2011. With this direction, the writ-petition is disposed of. REKHA SHARMA, J. DECEMBER 20, 2010 ka