K.C Agrawal, A.C.J:— In addition to the points decided by us in Shakti Theatre v. Union of India . 1990 60 F.L.R 827., learned counsel for the petitioners has further challenged the validity of the order of the Regional Provident fund Commissioner dated 25-7-1978 holding that the Employee's Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Act, 1952 correctly applied to the petitioners establishment.
2. The contention of the petitioner was that the cinema business was separate and distinct from petrol pump. Consequently, the two businesses could not be duped up together for the purposes of applying the provisions of the Employee's Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952.
3. Learned counsel also urged that the Employees provident funds Act was applied from 30.4.1986 by making it effective from 1.10.1984 By taking three businesses together, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner held that the petitioner had more than twenty employees and therefore, the petitioner was liable to give contribution for all the employees under the Act. The Employee's Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, admittedly did not apply in 1969. It was by virtue of Section 24 of the Cine-Workers and cinema Theatre workers (Regulation of Employment) Act, 1981 which was brought into force from 24.12.1981 that the Employee's Provident Funds Act, became applicable to the petitioner's establishment. For applying the Employee's Provident Funds Act, the Central Government issued a notification on 30.4.1986, making it effective from 1.10.1984 Before this date, the Employee's Provident Funds Act did not apply to cinemas. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner committed an error in applying the said Act to cinemas by taking the three businesses of the petitioner, i.e, Majestic Talkies, Pushpraj Cinema and Petrol Pump together.
4. Counsel urged that Majestic Talkies and Pushpraj cinema were different establishments and, therefore, they could not be clumped up together for the purposes of applying the Employee's Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952.
5. From the details gathered by the Inspector and from the partnership deed it was found that there was unity of Management and control, unity of ownership, unity of finance and geographical. Proximity to justify treating the Majestic Talkies, Pushpraj Cinema and the Majestic Automobiles (Petrol Pump) as one establishment under Section 2-A. The controversy was not decided from a correct angle. It appears to us that they are different and distinct units and unless an inter connection amongst the units is established of Mutual dependence of one over the other so that one cannot function without the other the units cannot be held to be one. The Regional Provident Funds Commissioner found that the Petitioner had withheld the evidence. The case requires going into the matter afresh.
6. Consequently we direct the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner to decide the controversy by taking into consideration the decision of the Supreme Court in Associated Cement Company v. Their Workmen . 1959-1960 17 F.L.R 166. and Gujshem Distillers India Ltd. v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner . 1985 2 Lab I.C page 1714..
7. For what we have said above, we allow the writ petition and quash the order of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner dated 25.7.1978 He is directed to decide the controversy afresh in the light of the observations made by us above in this judgment. No order as to cost.
8. Petition allowed.