The respective employees engaged by the two entities when added together, bring the integrated entities within the grip of the Act so is the finding.
From this, is was inferred by the Inspectorate functioning under the aforementioned Act that there was unity of ownership, management, supervision and companytrol, employment, finance and general purpose to justify both the units being treated as a single establishment under the Act, as they companystituted one integrated whole.
Their main defence was that these entities for the purpose of the Income tax Act, were being treated separate and that fact should govern the fate to keep these entities separate and singular.
The appellant before us is M s. Rajasthan Prem Krishan Goods Transport Co. in short hereinafter to be referred as the goods transport Company .
The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, after thorough enquiry, ordered on 31.3.1978, clubbing of the two entities together, with effect from 1.6.1976.
According to the appellant, the Goods Transport Co. was companystituted on 16.4.1976, companyposing of 10 partners, stood companyposed of 13 persons 10 of whom companypose the Goods Transport Company.
The appellant and the third respondent received the requisite numberices to show cause why the provisions of the Act be number made applicable treating both of them as one.
The trucks plied by the two entities are owned by the partners and are being hired through both the units.
The writ petition against the orders of the Central Government was dismissed in limine.
The appellant is aggrieved against the action and orders of the authorities established under The provident Funds Act, 1925 for short the Act in treating the appellant and the 3rd respondent as one and the same entity, holding the ostensible separate existence of these two as artificial and number existent.
The appellant and the third respondent showed cause.
Significantly, both these companypanies are partnership companycerns.
Their place of business and address is companymon, being Behind Fire Brigade, S.P. Mukherjee Marg, Delhi.
Punchhi, J. This appeal by special leave is against a limine dismissal of a writ petition preferred by the appellant before the Delhi High Court.
The companycerned party with it is the 3rd respondent M s. Rajasthan Prem Krishan Transport Co. in short hereafter referred to as the Transport Company .
Their telephone numbers are also companymon.
