Source: http://www.hrinfo.in/2010/06/clubbing-of-establishments_19.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 14:22:13+00:00

Document:
• In order to club three different units for the applicability of Employees' Provident Fund Act, there has to be mutual dependence by one upon the others.
Majestic Trading House v. Union of India, 1990 LLR 394 (All HC).
• Three concerns separately owned by three members of one family situated in the same premises will not be treated and/or clubbed together as one establishment to attract the applicability of the Act.
Khoja Lime Udyog v. RP.F. Commissioner, (1992) 1 LLJ 903: 1991 LLR 201: 1991 (62) FLR 252 (Raj HC).
• Whether an establishment consists of different branches or has establishments ¬Whether situated in the same place or in different places - All such departments or branches shall be treated as part of the same establishment - But does not provide for different establishments. Whether clubbing of four firms separately registered under Sales Tax, Shops & Estts. Act and separately assessed under the Income-tax Act justified? No.
Sunder Transport v. The Regional P.F. Commissioner, (1993) 66 FLR 528: (1993) 1 LLJ 810: 1993 LLR 165 (Bom HC).
• Functional integrality - Question as to existence of functional integrality ¬Between two units under one owner - Determinative test mere co-ownership by itself not sufficient for functional integrality.
Ebrahim Currin & Sons v. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Maharashtra and Goa, (1993) 67 FLR 1124: 1993 UC 1740: 1993 LLR 916 (Bom HC).
• Two different establishments will not be clubbed together for applicability of Employees' Provident Fund Act merely because they carryon business at the same place.
Evans Food Corporation v. Union of India, (1994) LIC 1439: (1994) 1 LLN 761: (1994) 69 FLR 74: (1994) 84 FLR 400: 1994 LLR 569 (Ker HC).
• Mere common ownership of two establishments will not justify their clubbing under Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act.
Devesh Sandeep Associates v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, (1997) 2 LLN 867: (1997) 1 CLR 273: (1997) 1 FLR 35: 1997 LLR 137 (Karn HC).
• Establishments of 22 tenants working as diamond cutters/polishers in the same building will not be clubbed.
Harshad Kumar M. Patel v. K.CD. Gangawani, (1997) 1 CLR 857: (1997) 2 LLN 220: (1996) 2 Guj LR 67: 1997 LLR 595 (Guj HC).
• Clubbing of school of speech and its branches as part of the same establishment will be justified since the petitioner had got full control over the branches and there is no independence and financial integrality between the petitioner and the branches.
E. Gajendran v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Karnataka, Bangalore, 1997 II CLR 1193 (Karn HC).
• Three schools functioning under the same Management will be treated one entity for coverage under Employees' Provident Funds & MP Act.
Sri Narayana Chiru English Medium School Alake, Kudroli, Mangalore v. Regional Provident fund Commissioner, Mangalore, 1998 LLR 38 (Karn HC).
• Two establishments separately registered under Shops & establishments Act can be clubbed together for coverage under EPF & MP Act.
Kiltari Colouring Factory v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, (2000) 1 LLJ 1041: 2000 LLR 169 (Del HC).
• Three units of a company cannot be clubbed together in the absence of functional integrality.
Maharashtra General Karngar Union v. Indian Gum Industrial Ltd., (2000) 86 FLR 533: 2000 LLR 948 (Bom HC).
• Common ownership and similar manufacturing activity will not be decisive factor to club the establishments for applicability of EPF & MP Act.
Niton Industries v. Union of India, (2000) 85 FLR 536: (2000) 1 LLJ 1518: 2000 LLR 599 (Bom HC).
• A restaurant and the hotel in the same premises will be clubbed together by applying the principles of functional integrality.
Hotel Mahaveer v. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, 2002 LLR 75 (Karn HC).
• There will be functional unity and integrality between two establishments e.g. Hamdard (Wakf) Laboratory (India) and the Institute (Respondent No.4) since some employees have been transferred from the Wakf to the Institute and their EPF contributions were deducted by the Institute and deposited with the Wakf hence the institute will be coverable under the EPF & MP Act from the date of its set up.
Hamdard (Wakf) Laboratory (India) v. KL. Sehgal, Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, (2003) 98 FLR 61: (2003) 103 FLR 399: 2003 LLR 715: 2003 (98) FLR 61 (Del HC).
• Unity of ownership, functional integrality and interlinking etc. is further proved since land of the institute belonged to the Wakf, electricity bills were paid by the Wakf and a printing press belonging to the Wakf was being nm in premises of the Institute.
Hamdard (Wakf) Laboratory (lndia) v. KL. Sehgal, Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, (2003) 98 FLR 61: (2003) 103 FLR 399: 2003 LLR 715: 2003 (98) FLR 61 (Del HC).
• Merely because the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner has written a latter to the Institute that it is liable to be covered under the EPF & MP Act and also a separate code number was allotted to the Institute will not make it a separate entity to seek, exemption and/or non-applicability of the Employees' Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 from the dale of its set up.
• Even when the two establishments are governed by different Acts e.g. one by Muslim Wakf Act and the other by Societies Registration Act it will not make them separate entities when the activities are inter-linked including unity of management, finance, functional besides supervision and control etc.
Hamdard (Wakf) Laboratory (India) v. K.L. Sehgal, Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, (2003) 98 FLR 61: (2003) 103 FLR 399: 2003 LLR 715: 2003 (98) FLR 61 (Del HC).
• Two restaurants will be clubbed for covering under the Employees' Provident Funds when there is functional integrality, geographical proximity, unity of ownership and inter-dependence.
Kaka's Restaurant v, Sh, K.L. Sehgal, Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Delhi, (2003) 105 DLT 85: (2003) 3 LLN 582: (2003) III LLJ436: 2003 LLR 839 (Del HC).
• Clubbing of three units being run at one place with unity of Management, supervision, control, financial integrality and geographical proximity, as one unit for coverage and demand for provident fund contributions, as made by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, cannot be set aside in the writ petition.
Mohan Bro/hers v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, (2003) 2 CLR 752: (2003) 103 FJR 409: (2003) III LLJ 424: 2003 LLR 856 (Del HC).
• Clubbing of two shops with the factory for coverage under the Employees' Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provisions Act will not be justified when two shops at Mangalore and Bangalore had 6 employees and were maintaining independent and separate account books, balance sheets and trading accounts. Hence, there was neither any financial nor any functional dependency between the factory and the two shops. .
Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Mangalore v. B. Ganapathy Bhandarkar, 2003 LLR 1022: 2003 (98) FLR 987 (Karn HC).
• Merely that a hotel and a restaurant have a common counsel and telephone, will not justify clubbing of both for Provident Fund Act.
Hotel Yamuna Villa, a Partnership Firm through its Partner Subodh Kumar Singh v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Sub-Regional Office 'C' and 'D' Block, 2006 LLR 388 (Jhar HC).
• Two establishments, having no inter-dependence, cannot be clubbed for coverage under the Provident Funds Act.
C.L. Khanna v. Union of India, 2007 LLR (SN) 329 (Del HC).
• Clubbing of two non inter-dependent units for coverage under the EPF will not be legal.
Regional P.F. Commissioner v. EPF Appellate Tribunal, 2007 LLR 350 (Del HC).
• When one establishment was under the control of husband and the other with partnership of his wife, both are rightly clubbed for coverage under Provident Funds Act.
Regional Provident Fund Commissioner v. Nath Traders, 2007 LLR 378 (Del HC).
• Merely because the proprietor of one concern was Managing Director of the other unit will not justify for coverage under Provident Funds Act.
Regional Provident Fund Commissioner v. M/s. Raj's Continental Exports (P) Ltd., 2007 LLR 642 (SC).
• Unless there is evidence of any financial or managerial control, it could not be said that one was the branch of other establishment.
• Coverage of three establishments for provident funds would be appropriate when there is functional integrality amongst them.
Times Publishing House Ltd., Jaipur v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, 2007 LLR 842 (Raj HC).
• Clubbing of two establishments for coverage under Provident Fund when copies of reports were riot furnished to the employees.
Small Gauges Ltd. v. V.P. Ramaiah, Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Pune, 2009 LLR 28 (Bom HC).

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.