TMI Blog1998 (1) TMI 522X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the said agreement, M/s Ravi Aircools was to premit the petitioner to use their brand name on payment of royalty of ₹ 3/- per fan prodcued by the petitioner, the said amount of the royalty could be increased or decreased. The petitioner was to maintain the quality of the product; M/s Ravi Aircools was to have a control over the quality checking and was also entitled to examine the accounts in relation to production, etc. The respondent No. 1, Regional Provident Fund Commissioner issued a notice to the petitioner that it was required to submit the statements and was also required to deposit the amount as its own contribution. In response to the notice issued, the petitioner raised various objections and claimed protection under Secti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... were possible, the one which was to advance the object of the Act and was in favour of the employees for whose benefit the Act was passed had to be accepted. The Commissioner ultimately found that the petitioner's challenge to the applicability of the Act was not sustainable and was liable to be rejected. Being dissatisfied by the said order, the establishment- petitioner has preferred this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution Of India. 4. Shri Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner did not properly appreciate the law laid down by the Supreme Court in relation to the functional integrality and has also not taken into consideration that the present petit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner establishment and was justified in observing, looking to the terms of Annexure P/12, that the petitioner- establishment was an extension/department or branch of M/s Ravi Aircools. 6. Section 2A provides that where an establishment consists of different departments or has branches whether situate in the same place or in different places, all such departments or branches shall be treated as part of the same establishment. Section 2A if read in its true perspective, would only mean that a person who has obtained benefit under Section 16(1)(d) of the Act, would not be entitled to the infancy protection, if he goes on opening different departments or branches. Section 2A in fact is a corollary and in contra-indication to Section 16(1)(d) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner were not interpretation of the legal provisions, but in fact were depending on their own facts. In the opinion of this Court, if the Commissioner was of the opinion that the establishment was required to produce complete accounts, then exercising powers of a Civil Court under Section 7A(2) of the Act, it could have required the petitioner to discover and produce the document; it could also direct them to file affidavits; it could also direct issuance of the commission and it could also enforce the attendance of any person for examining him on oath. Simply because the documents were not filed by the present petitioner, it could not be held that the petitioner is an extension/department or branch of M/s Ravi Aircools. In various judgement ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Annexure P/12, it clearly appears that the petitioners were required to pay royaltly at ₹ 3/- per fan produced by them and, the rate of royaltly could be increased or decreased from time to time by mutual consent. The petitioner-establishment was required to produce Fans of such quality and description as prescribed by M/s Ravi Aircools. They were also required to maintain proper accounts regarding the fans produced by them and M/s Ravi Aircools did reserve the right to inspect the factory at any time during the currency of the agreement. The agreement also provided that M/s. Ravi Aircools would be free to adopt any method/methods of quality checking in respect of the fans produced by the petitioner establishment under the brand name ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the learned Regional Provident Fund Commissioner deserves to and is accordingly quashed. The matter is remanded back to him with a direction to give the petitioner proper opportunity to submit his case and if the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner is of the opinion that the petitioner is required to produce the documents, then he can exercise his powers under Section 7A(2) of the Act. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner shall be free to pass order in accordance with law, but after giving proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. As the parties are present before this Court, it is directed that the petitioner shall appear before the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner on March 23, 1998. On his appearance before the Regio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
