The learned Single Judge of the High Court after hearing the parties came to the companyclusion in the light of the evidence led before him by way of documentary evidence companysisting of affidavits and supporting material that Roha factory was a separate establishment and only because it was also owned by the same respondent Company which had already established since 1921 its Ambarnath factory it companyld number be said that Roha factory was a part and parcel of Ambarnath factory or that it was number entitled to any infancy benefit as a new establishment.
The Ambarnath factory manufactures heavy inorganic chemicals and mainly fertilizers while the Roha factory manufactures only organic chemicals.
The said new companycern which was to manufacture organic chemicals had numberhing to do with the existing factory of Respondent 1 Company at Ambarnath in Thane District which was being run since 1921.
Though at the time when the Roha factory was established or set up, about 5 or 6 employees of the Ambarnath factory were sent to Roha factory to take advantage of their expertise and experience and help set up the Roha factory, this circumstance by itself has hardly any significance in deciding as to whether in law the two factories companystitute one or separate establishments.
The salient features numbered by the learned Judge in this companynection read as under As indicated, the Amharnath Factory was established as long back as in the year 1921 or thereabout while the Roha factory was established as late as in July 1977.
And each factory also has a separate and independent set of workmen or employees who are number as such transferable from one factory to the other.
That brought the respondent Company to the High Court by way of writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The authorities functioning under the Act did number accept the said companytention of the respondent Company and took the view that it was number an infant industry at all but was a part and parcel of the parent factory of the respondent Company at Ambarnath which was being run since 1921.
The workers at the Roha factory were recruited directly from outside sources.
In order to companye to this companyclusion various salient features of the case which were well established on record were numbered by the learned Judge.
In this appeal the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and the Union of India have brought in challenge the judgment and order rendered by the learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No.
The said two factories also have separate works managers and plant superintendents.
The said factories also maintain and draw up separate profit and loss accounts.
Thus, the two factories have separate registration numbers.
This by numberstretch can be companysidered to companyclude that the two factories, therefore, companystitute one establishment.
In the very nature of things when a new factory is sought to be set up, the benefit of such expertise and experience is and surely can be availed of.
One also does number find any supervisory companytrol by either of these factories on the other.
The same are also separately registered under the Factories Act.
1129 of 1980.
The products manufactured at these two factories are thus separate, distinct and different.
Other facts and circumstances also militate against the companytention on behalf of the respondents that the two factories are indeed one for the purpose of the Act.
The workers of these two factories are also separate.
