M/S MATHOSRI MANIKBAI KOTHARI COLLEGE OF VISUAL ARTSversusTHE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER

                 [2023] 16 S.C.R. 538 : 2023 INSC 909



                           CASE DETAILS

      M/S MATHOSRI MANIKBAI KOTHARI COLLEGE OF
                     VISUAL ARTS
                                    v.
     THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER
                    (Civil Appeal No. 4188 of 2013)
                          OCTOBER 12, 2023
           [HIMA KOHLI AND RAJESH BINDAL, JJ.]
                            HEADNOTES
     Issue for consideration: Clubbing of two Institutions run by the same
Society for the purpose of coverage under the EPF Act.
      The Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions
Act, 1952 – Coverage under the EPF Act by clubbing of two Institutes
run by the same Society – Society ran two institutions including the
appellant, in the same campus – One had 8 employees and the other
had 18 – Report of the Enforcement Officer that there being total 26
employees working in both the Institutes, managed by the same Society
and within the same premises, the establishment would be covered under
the provisions of the EPF Act – Order passed by the Commissioner
u/s.7-A of the EPF Act – Challenged by the appellant – Appeal dismissed
by the Tribunal – Writ Petition filed by the appellant also dismissed –
Order upheld in writ appeal:
      Held: Appellant had taken the case very casually – Material
on record sufficient to non-suit the appellant – Even the documents
produced by the appellant themselves show that it is not an independent
establishment but an arm of the Society – Under the provisions of the
EPF Act, if any establishment employs 20 or more persons, the same
shall be covered under the provisions of the EPF Act for grant of various
benefits thereunder to the employees working there, the EPF Act being
a welfare legislation – The mere fact that two Institutes, managed and
controlled by the same management, offer different courses or were
established at different times is not relevant for their clubbing under the
                                   538
M/s MATHOSRI MANIKBAI KOTHARI COLLEGE OF VISUAL ARTS v. THE 539
          ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER


EPF Act – The fact that one of the institutes receives 100% grant-in-aid
from the government while the other is receiving to the extent of 70%,
is also not relevant – After coverage of the establishments, the benefits,
as determined for the purpose of assessing dues under the EPF Act, was
already assessed by the Commissioner – Both the Institutes are being run
by the same Society – The Ideal Institute was set up in the year 1965,
whereas the appellant was set up in the year 1985-86 – If the employees
employed in both the institutes are added, the total number of employees
would be 26, which will be sufficient for coverage in terms of s.1(3)
(b) of the EPF Act, stipulating that an institute employing 20 or more
persons is liable to be covered under the provisions of the EPF Act – It
is also not in dispute that both the institutes are being run in the same
campus – There is financial integrity between the Society of the appellant
as well as the other Institute as substantial funds were advanced to the
Institutes by the Society – Further, both the Institutes are functioning
from the same premises. [Paras 15, 16, 19, 21-23]
       LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
     Management of Pratap Press, New Delhi v. Secretary, Delhi
Press Workers’ Union Delhi etc., AIR 1960 SC 1213; L.N. Gadodia
& Sons v. Provident Fund Commissioner, [2011] 11 SCR 508 : (2011)
13 SCC 517; Noor Niwas Nursery Public School v. Regional Provident
Fund Commissioner and others, [2000] 5 Suppl. SCR 478: (2001) 1
SCC 1; Shree Vishal Printers Limited, Jaipur v. Regional Provident
Fund Commissioner, Jaipur and another, [2019] 12 SCR 146 : (2019)
9 SCC 508; Associated Cement Co. v. Workmen, [1960] SCR 703 :
AIR 1960 SC 56; Regional Provident Fund Commissioner v. Naraini
Udyog, [1996] 3 Suppl. SCR 202 : (1996) 5 SCC 522 – referred to.
      OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED
             ORDER AND APPEARANCES
     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.4188 of 2013.
    From the Judgment and Order dated 30.09.2011 of the High Court of
Karnataka at Gulbarga in WA No.10133 of 2011.
540             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                             [2023] 16 S.C.R.


       Appearances:
     Basava Prabhu S Patil, Shailesh Madiyal, Mr./Ms. Geet Ratan Ahuja,
Vinayaka S. Pandit, Samarth Kashyap, V. N. Raghupathy, Advs. for the
Appellant.
    Nachiketa Joshi, Ms. Himadri Haksar, Ms. Sucheta Joshi, Yash Singh,
Narayan Dev Parashar, Advs. for the Respondent.
         JUDGMENT / ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT

                                   JUDGMENT

       RAJESH BINDAL, J.
      1. The order dated 30.09.2011, passed by the Division Bench of the
Gulbarga Bench of the Karnataka High Court in a Writ Appeal 1 has been
impugned by the appellant before this Court. Vide aforesaid order, the
Division Bench has upheld the order dated 10.06.2011, passed by the learned
Single Judge in Writ Petition2. The Single Judge upheld the order3 passed
by the Tribunal4 dated 24.12.2010 and also upheld the application of EPF
Act5 to the appellant’s institution.
      2. Briefly the facts, available on record, arethat the Ideal Fine
Arts Society6 runs two institutions, namely, the ‘Ideal Institute of Fine
Arts’7 and ‘Mathosri Manikbai Kothari College of Visual Arts’8. Both,
the Ideal Institute as well as the Arts College are being run in the same
campus. The Ideal Institute was set up way back in the year 1965, offering
Diploma Course in drawing and painting, whereas the ArtsCollege was
set up in the year 1985-86, offering Degree and Post-Graduate Degree
in drawing and painting. It was claimed that the Ideal Institute employed
8 persons, whereas the Arts College had 18 employees. The issue arose


1     Writ Appeal No. 10133 of 2011.
2     Writ Petition No. 80995 of 2011.
3     In ATA No.03/06/2006
4     Employee Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal.
5     The Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952.
6     For short, ‘Society.
7     For short, ‘Ideal Institute’.
8     For short, ‘Arts College’.
M/s MATHOSRI MANIKBAI KOTHARI COLLEGE OF VISUAL ARTS v. THE 541
 ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER [RAJESH BINDAL, J.]


with reference to their coverage and application of the EPF Act. Based on
the report of the Enforcement Officer dated 01.07.2003, it was reported
that there being total 26 employees working in both the Institutes, which
are managed by the same Society and within the same premises, the
establishment would be covered under the provisions of the EPF Act
w.e.f. 01.03.1988. Thereafter, a notice was issued to the establishment
and after affording an opportunity of hearing, an order was passed by
the Commissioner9 on 23.09.2005, under Section 7-A of the EPF Act,
assessing the amount of contributions to be made by the appellant under
various schemes of the EPF Act. The aforesaid order was challenged by
the appellant through statutory appeal before the Tribunal, which was
dismissed vide order dated 24.12.2010. Thereafter, the appellant filed
a Writ Petition challenging the order passed by the Tribunal before the
High Court, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order
dated 10.06.2011. In writ appeal, the order of the learned Single Judge
was upheld by the Division Bench of the High Court.
      3. Learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that the impugned
orders passed by the Commissioner, the Tribunal, as well as the High Court
are not legally sustainable. The appellant submitted that both the Institutes,
namely, Ideal Institute and Arts College are independent from each other
and are merely being managed by the same Society. There is no financial
integrity between the two Institutes and both the Institutes are offering
different courses, having permission/affiliation from different authorities.
The Ideal Institute is getting 100% grant-in-aid, whereas the Arts College
is getting 70% grant-in-aid from the Government of Karnataka. The Ideal
Institute was set up in the year 1965, whereas the Arts College was set up
in the year 1985-86. Furthermore, the appellant submitted that, since both
the Institutes are independent from each other and are not employing 20 or
more persons, their clubbing for coverage under the provisions of the EPF
Act,is totally illegal and deserves to be set aside. In support of his arguments,
reliance was placed by the appellant upon Management of Pratap Press,
New Delhi v. Secretary, Delhi Press Workers’ Union Delhi etc., AIR
1960 SC 1213.



9   The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner.
542           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2023] 16 S.C.R.


      4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted
that, if the tests laid down by this Court in L.N. Gadodia& Sons v.
Provident Fund Commissioner, (2011) 13 SCC 517,are applied in the
present case, it will be evident that there is no error in the orders passed by
the Commissioner, the Tribunal or the High Court, directing coverage of
both the Institutes run by the Society, under the EPF Act. The respondent
submitted that it is a case in which neither the appellant nor the Ideal Institute
or the Society, which is managing the affairs of the Institutes, had placed
any material before the Commissioner, the Tribunal or even the High Court
to dislodge the facts found by the Enforcement Officer and established that
both the Institutes are independent and have no common management.
The audit report which has been placed on record before this Court is for
the year ending March 2011, which was finalised on 16.08.2011. The same
was not even placed on record before the High Court, though the appeal
was decided on 30.09.2011. No argument referring to the audit report was
raised before the High Court.
      5. The learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that, once
the notice was issued to the establishment regarding application and coverage
under the provisions of the EPF Act by clubbing the two Institutes being run
by the Society, the onus was on the establishment to controvert the same, by
placing relevant material on record. In fact, even before the Commissioner,
the appellant failed to produce any record and appear regularly. The Tribunal
also adjudicated the appellant’s appeal in its absence. The Single Judge
of the High Court had also noted that the appellant had failed to produce
any material to support the claim that there is no common supervisory or
financial management and that the two Institutes were distinct with separate
management and not interconnected. The fact remained that both are being
run by the same Society. The respondent further submitted that copy of the
statement of bank account,placed on record by the appellant before this
Court, shows that the account was opened on 07.07.2004. Thus, the same will
not establish that both the Institutes are not being run by the same Society
and are independent. The respondent also submitted that just because the
two Institutes are offering different courses,having permission from different
authorities, will not exclude the coverage under the EPF Act. Even the fact
that one of the Institutes is getting 100% grant-in-aid whereas the other is
getting 70%, is also not relevant. The respondent submitted that there is no
M/s MATHOSRI MANIKBAI KOTHARI COLLEGE OF VISUAL ARTS v. THE 543
 ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER [RAJESH BINDAL, J.]


merit in the present appeal and the same deserves to be dismissed. Reliance
was placed by the respondent upon judgments of this Court in Noor Niwas
Nursery Public School v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and
others, (2001) 1 SCC 1and Shree Vishal Printers Limited, Jaipur v.
Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Jaipur and another (2019) 9
SCC 508.
     6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
relevant referred record.
      7. The undisputed facts on record are that the Society had initially set
up ‘Ideal Institute’ in the year 1965 and later it set up ‘Arts College’ in the
year 1985-86. Both the Institutes are being managed by the Society. It is also
an admitted fact that the Ideal Institute employed 8 persons, whereas the
Arts College employed 18 persons. Under the provisions of the EPF Act, if
any establishment employs 20 or more persons, the same shall be covered
under the provisions of the EPF Act for grant of various benefits thereunder
to the employees working there, the EPF Act being a welfare legislation.
       8. The issue which requires consideration in the present appeal is
regarding the clubbing of two Institutions being run by the same Society
i.e., Ideal Fine Arts Society. In case the two Institutions are interconnected,
these can be clubbed for the purpose of coverage under the EPF Act.
      9. Before we deal with the arguments raised by the learned counsel
for the parties, we deem it appropriate to refer to the settled legal position
with reference to clubbing of different institutes for the purpose of coverage
under the EPF Act.
      10. In Pratap Press’s case (supra), this Court referred to the earlier
judgment of this Court in Associated Cement Co. v. Workmen, AIR 1960
SC 56, wherein it was opined that it is impossible to lay down any one test as
absolute and invariable for all cases to determine the issue regarding clubbing
of two establishments for the purpose of coverage under the EPF Act. The
real purpose is to find out true relations between the two establishments and
finally opine thereon. In one case, ‘unity of ownership, management and
control’ may be an important test whereas in another ‘functional integrity’ or
‘general unity’ may be important. There can also be a case where the test can
be of the ‘unity of employment’. Relevant para 5 thereof is extracted below:
544           SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2023] 16 S.C.R.


      “5. In Associated Cement Co. v. Workmen [AIR 1960 (SC) 56] this
      Court had to consider the question whether the employer's defence
      to a claim for lay-off compensation by the workers of the Chaibasa
      Cement Works that the laying off was due to a strike in another part
      of the establishment viz. limestone quarry at Rajanka was good. In
      other words the question was whether the limestone quarry of Rajanka
      formed part of the establishment known as the Chaibasa Cement Works
      within the meaning of Section 25-E(iii) of the Industrial Disputes Act.
      While pointing out that it was impossible to lay down any one test as an
      absolute and invariable test for all cases it observed that the real purpose
      of these tests would be to find out the true relation between the parts,
      branches, units etc. This Court however mentioned certain tests which
      might be useful in deciding whether two units form part of the same
      establishment. Unity of ownership, unity of management and control,
      unity of finance and unity of labour, unity of employment and unity
      of functional “integrity” were the tests which the Court applied in that
      case. It is obvious there is an essential difference between the question
      whether the two units form part of one establishment for the purposes
      of Section 25-E(iii) and the question whether they form part of one
      single industry for the purposes of calculation of the surplus profits for
      distribution of bonus to workmen in one of the units. Some assistance
      can still nevertheless be obtained from the enumeration of the tests
      in that case. Of all these tests the most important appears to us to be
      that of functional “integrity” and the question of unity of finance and
      employment and of labour. Unity of ownership exists ex hypothesie.
      Where two units belong to a proprietor there is almost always
      likelihood also of unity of management. In all such cases therefore the
      Court has to consider with care how far there is “functional integrity”
      meaning thereby such functional interdependence that one unit cannot
      exist conveniently and reasonably without the other and on the further
      question whether in matters of finance and employment the employer
      has actually kept the two units distinct or integrated.”
                                                           (emphasis supplied)
   11.Similar was the position in Regional Provident Fund
Commissioner v. Naraini Udyog, (1996) 5 SCC 522, wherein this Court
M/s MATHOSRI MANIKBAI KOTHARI COLLEGE OF VISUAL ARTS v. THE 545
 ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER [RAJESH BINDAL, J.]


found the functional integrity with common management of two different
establishments controlled by the same Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) and
having a common head office, even though located at a distance of three
kilometres. Merely fact of having separate registration under the Factories
Act 1948, Sales Tax Act 1956 and the ESI Act 1948, was held to be non-
relevant for the purpose of clubbing and coverage under the EPF Act.
      12. The Pratap Press’s case (supra) was also referred in Noor Niwas
Nursery Public School (supra) wherein this Court held that no straight
jacket formula or test can be laid down for the purpose of clubbing of the
two establishments and coverage under the EPF Act. Relevant para 5 therein
is extracted below:
     “5. In the present case, when two units are located adjacent to one
     another and there are only two teachers with an aaya, a clerk and a peon,
     it is difficult to believe that the society which runs 30 schools would run
     a separate school consisting of such a small number of staff. If the unit
     of the appellant School was not part of the unit of Francis Girls Higher
     Secondary School, the Head Clerk, Mrs Wadhavan could not have been
     in possession of the particulars of the appellant School and could not
     have furnished such particulars to the Inspector when he visited the
     school in connection with the grant of a code number. Undisputedly,
     the two units are run by the same society and they are located in one
     and the same address thereby establishing geographical proximity and
     nothing worthwhile has been elicited in the cross-examination of the
     Inspector in regard to inquiries made by him from Mrs P. Wadhavan.
     Mrs P. Wadhavan was not examined before the Provident Fund
     Commissioner. All these facts clearly point out to one factor that the
     two units constitute one single establishment. After all the appellant
     School caters to nursery classes, while the higher classes are provided
     in Francis Girls Higher Secondary School. Thus, the link between the
     two cannot be ruled out. In the facts and circumstances of the case,
     we hold that the view taken by the Provident Fund Commissioner as
     affirmed by the High Court in this regard is correct.”
                                                       (emphasis supplied)
     13. The facts of the case in Noor Niwas Nursery Public School
(supra) are almost identical to the case in hand. Therein, two educational
546          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2023] 16 S.C.R.


institutions were being run by the same society. One institution was the
Higher Secondary School and another one was the Nursery School (the
appellant therein). The appellant contended that since the two institutions
have separate and independent accounts and are managed by the two different
managing committees, thus both the institutions can’t be treated as one
establishment for the purpose of clubbing and coverage under the EPF Act.
The issue before this Court was to determine how far there is functional
integrity between the two units and whether one unit can exist conveniently
and reasonably without the other. This Court after pursuing the material
available on record, held that two institutions were run by the same society
and are located in one premises having same address, thereby, establishing
geographical proximity, hence, were rightly clubbed for coverage under
the EPF Act.
      14. In L. N. Gadodia & Sons’s case (supra), the issue under
consideration before this Court was regarding the clubbing of two
companies namely, Delhi Cattle Farming Pvt. Ltd and Delhi Farming and
Construction Pvt. Ltd. It was argued by the appellant therein, that both these
companies were independently incorporated at different times and there
was no connection between their activities or the business. However, the
Enforcement authority argued that both the companies had their registered
office at the same place wherein some of the directors were also common.
There were financial transactions between the two companies. Both the
companies had the same telephone number and were using the same
gram number. The issue before this Court was as to whether these two
companies, despite having separate legal entities, common management,
financial integration and workforce proximity,should be considered a
single establishment under the EPF Act. This Court held that despite being
separate entities, both the institutions were effective branches of the same
establishment because they were run by the same management, workforce
and have common financial integrity. Hence, the Court held that the EPF
Act will be applicable and both the companies will be regarded as one
establishment for the purpose of coverage under the EPF Act.
      15. Now coming to the facts of the case in hand, as had already been
noticed above, both the Institutes are being run by the same Society. The
Ideal Institute was set up in the year 1965, whereas the Arts College (the
M/s MATHOSRI MANIKBAI KOTHARI COLLEGE OF VISUAL ARTS v. THE 547
 ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER [RAJESH BINDAL, J.]


appellant) was set up in the year 1985-86. If the employees employed in
both the institutes are added, the total number of employees would be 26,
which will be sufficient for coverage in terms of Section 1(3)(b) of the EPF
Act, which stipulates that an institute employing 20 or more persons is liable
to be covered under the provisions of the EPF Act. It is also a fact not in
dispute that both the institutes are being run in the same campus.
      16. From a perusal of various orders and documents produced on
record, it is evident that the appellant had taken the case very casually. After
the inspection of the institute, report was submitted by the Enforcement
Officer on 01.07.2003, wherein it was stated that there being total 26
employees working in both Institutes, being managed by the same Society
and within the same premises, the establishment would be covered under the
provisions of the EPF Act w.e.f. 01.03.1988. It is the date from which the
EPF Act was made applicable to the educational institutions. The coverage
was confirmed vide order dated 12.08.2003. There is nothing pointed out
by learned counsel for the appellant, that the aforesaid two orders clubbing
both the establishments provisionally and thereafter finally was challenged
by the appellant. If yes, the same was not presented before this Court. The
proceedings in the present case started after an order was passed by the
Commissioner on 23.09.2005under Section 7-A of the EPF Act, which
provides for determination of the dues payable under the EPF Act, for the
benefits of the employees. The Commissioner’s order begins with the line
that the establishment has been covered under the provisions of the EPF Act
and Schemes framed there under. Further, it recorded that the management
had responded to the notice issued by the Commissioner on 30.06.2004
vide its letter dated 14.12.2004, disputing the applicability of the provisions
of the EPF Act. The order passed by the Commissioner also recorded that
on various dates when the matter was listed, either no one appeared on
behalf of the management or only adjournment was sought. It was also
recorded that the management had failed to produce the relevant records.
The Enforcement Officer had to visit the establishment for the inspection.
The report mentions that there were total 26 employees. Thereafter, the
establishment had pointed out that, 8 out of the 26 employees were working
in the aided Institute i.e., Ideal Institute, thus, these ought to be excluded
for the purpose of calculation of dues under the EPF Act. The issue raised
in the present appeal is not regarding the calculation of dues under the EPF
548          SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2023] 16 S.C.R.


Act, rather it is regarding the coverage of the EPF Act by clubbing of two
Institutes. In fact, no arguments were raised regarding calculation.
      17. After verification of all the documents, the Commissioner passed
an order wherein it determined the amount due under various schemes of
the EPF Act. The appellant filed a Review Petition under Section 7-B of
the EPF Act, which was rejected by the Commissioner vide order dated
14.11.2005. Aggrieved by the orders, the appellant filed an appeal before
the Tribunal. However, no one appeared when the appeal was taken up for
hearing. The Tribunal while considering the merits of the case, recorded
that the onus to prove that the employees were less than 20 for exclusion of
the applicability of EPF Act before the Commissioner, was on the appellant
and the appellant had failed to discharge the same. Thus, there was no error
in the order passed by the Commissioner under Section 7-A of the EPF Act.
      18. Still aggrieved, the appellant filed a Writ Petition before the High
Court. The learned Single Judge of the High Court held that since both
the Institutes were run by the same management and there was common
supervisory and financial control within the Institutions, thus both are
inter-connected. It was also noted that the appellant had failed to produce
any material to dislodge the aforesaid facts. The learned Single dismissed
the Writ Petition. The Division Bench also upheld the order passed by the
Single Bench and dismissed the Writ Appeal.
      19. Though the aforesaid material is sufficient to non-suit it, to be fair
to the appellant, we will deal with the documents which have been placed on
record by the appellant before this Court but not before any of the authorities
under the EPF Act or the High Court. The first one is the letter dated
09.12.1987 from the University Grants Commission conveying the Registrar,
Gulbarga University, Gulbarga, about the inclusion of the appellant college
in the list of the approved colleges under the non-Government colleges,
teaching upto Bachelor’s degree. The name of the college is mentioned as
‘The Ideal Fine Arts Society’s College of Visual Art’, a copy of which is
also endorsed to the Principal of the aforesaid College. It shows that the
College is nothing but an extended arm of the Society. The next document
is the certificate of accreditation issued by the National Assessment and
Accreditation Council on 04.11.2004. This accreditation has been issued
in the name of ‘The Ideal Fine Art Society’s Mathosri Manikbai Kothari
M/s MATHOSRI MANIKBAI KOTHARI COLLEGE OF VISUAL ARTS v. THE 549
 ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER [RAJESH BINDAL, J.]


College of Visual Arts’. This document again belies the stand of the appellant
that both the institutes are independent. The documents produced by the
appellant themselves show that it is not an independent establishment but
an arm of the Society.
      20. The next document is the audit report of the Ideal Fine Arts
Society’s Mathosri Manikbai Kothari College of Visual Arts for the year
ending March 2011. The accounts were finalized on 16.08.2011. Though, it
may not be relevant considering that the two establishments managed and
run by the same Society were clubbed way back in 2003 and the assessment
order under Section 7-A of the EPF Act was passed by the Commissioner
on 23.09.2005, still a perusal of the balance sheet of the appellant clearly
shows deposits from both the Society and the Ideal Fine Arts Trust. It shows
financial integrity of the appellant with the Society which is running both the
Institutes. Schedule No.4 attached to the Income and Expenditure Account
shows details of the capital receipts. It mentioned Hand Loan from Ideal
Fine Arts Trust and the Ideal Fine Arts Society. Similar accounts of the Ideal
Institute have been withheld from the Court, as the same would have certainly
undermined the appellant's case of financial integrity with the Society, which
manages both the Institutes, and therefore, the management thereof. What
has been placed on record with reference to the Ideal Institute is the Receipt
&Payment Accounts for the years ending 31.03.2009 and 31.03.2010. Even
these statements show loan from Ideal Fine Arts Trust. A certificate from
the Corporation Bank dated 03.06.2009, has also been produced, before this
Court, showing that the account was opened on 07.07.2004, in the name of
the Ideal Institute. The name of the introducer for opening the account is
shown as the ‘Ideal Fine Arts Trust’. No other documents for the period from
1988 till the Commissioner's order, were submitted. Even the documents
pertaining to the subsequent period weaken the appellant's case.
      21. Even the judgment of this Court in Pratap Press’s case (supra)
relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant does not come to the
rescue of the appellant. In that case, this Court upheld the order passed by
the Tribunal on appreciation of the material produced before it, wherein
it was opined that both the units are distinct and separate industrial units.
The matter was examined in the light of the principles laid down in the
Associated Cement’s case (supra).
550            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                         [2023] 16 S.C.R.


      22. The mere fact that two Institutes, managed and controlled by the
same management, offer different courses or were established at different
times is not relevant for their clubbing under the EPF Act. The fact that one
of the institutes receives 100% grant-in-aid from the government while the
other is receiving to the extent of 70%,is also not relevant. After coverage of
the establishments, the benefits, as determined for the purpose of assessing
dues under the EPF Act, have already been assessed by the Commissioner.
      23. From a perusal of the material available on record and the settled
position of law, it can be safely opined that there is financial integrity between
the Society of the appellant as well as the Ideal Institute as substantial
funds have been advanced to the Institutes by the Society. Further, both the
Institutes are functioning from the same premises.
      24. For the reasons mentioned above, the appeal is dismissed. There
shall be no order as to costs.


Headnotes prepared by:                                           Appeal dismissed.
Divya Pandey