{"id":255117,"date":"2007-03-20T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-03-19T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/zeenath-garments-vs-asst-provident-fund-on-20-march-2007"},"modified":"2014-12-19T20:40:41","modified_gmt":"2014-12-19T15:10:41","slug":"zeenath-garments-vs-asst-provident-fund-on-20-march-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/zeenath-garments-vs-asst-provident-fund-on-20-march-2007","title":{"rendered":"Zeenath Garments vs Asst.Provident Fund … on 20 March, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Zeenath Garments vs Asst.Provident Fund … on 20 March, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWP(C) No. 21005 of 2003(A)\n\n\n1. ZEENATH GARMENTS, UNEEN TOWER\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. ASST.PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER,\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.GOPINATH\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.R.SUDHIR, SC, P.F.\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN\n\n Dated :20\/03\/2007\n\n O R D E R\n                                  S. SIRI JAGAN, J.\n\n                        ----------------------------------\n\n                         W.P.(C)NO. 21005 OF 2003\n\n                     -------------------------------------\n\n             DATED THIS THE 20th DAY OF MARCH, 2007\n\n\n                                     JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
       The   petitioner   is  a  partnership   firm  engaged   in  the   business   of<\/p>\n
sale of ready made garments in the 1st  floor of   a building leased by<\/p>\n
them in the name and style of Zeenath Garments.  The firm consists of<\/p>\n
the following partners.\n<\/p>\n
\n
       ”       1.      M. Aboobacker Hajee, S\/o. Ahammed Hajee,<\/p>\n
                       (Managing Partner).\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               2.      P. Abdul Nazer, S\/o. Moideen Hajee.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
               3.      M. Abdul Gafoor, S\/o. Muhammed Hajee.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
               4.      M. Shameer Abdul Rahman, S\/o. Abdul Rahman<\/p>\n
                       Hajee.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n
       2.      There   is   another   firm   running   another   business   in   the<\/p>\n
ground floor of the same building also on lease owner of the building<\/p>\n
being   the   same   in   the   name   and   style   of   Zeenath   Textiles.     That<\/p>\n
partnership firm consists of the following partners.<\/p>\n
               ”       a)     Abdurahiman Hajee (Managing Partner)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                       b)     M. Abdurahiman Hajee.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
<\/blockquote>\n
                        c)    M. Abdul Salam\n\n\n                       d)     P. Abdul Shukoor   \"\n\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n
       3.      The   respondent-   Assistant   Provident   Fund   Commissioner<\/p>\n
W.P.(c)21005\/03                               2<\/span><\/p>\n
issued notice to the petitioner for clubbing these two establishments<\/p>\n
together   for   the   purpose   of   coverage   under   the   Employees’<\/p>\n
Provident   Funds   and   Miscellaneous   Provisions   Act<\/a>.     After   taking<\/p>\n
evidence,   ultimately   the   respondent   passed   Ext.P6   order   holding<\/p>\n
that there  is  functional integrality between  the two establishments<\/p>\n
and   therefore   these   two   establishments   are   liable   to   be   clubbed<\/p>\n
together   for   the   purpose   of   coverage   under   the   Employees’<\/p>\n
Provident   Fund   and   Miscellaneous   Provisions   Act<\/a>.     Ext.P6   order   is<\/p>\n
under   challenge   in   this   writ   petition.     At   the   outset,   the   learned<\/p>\n
counsel   for   the   petitioner   was   asked   as   to   why   he   did   not   file   an<\/p>\n
appeal before the Appellate Tribunal.  He pointed out that in Ground<\/p>\n
C, he has specifically stated as to why he could not file an appeal,<\/p>\n
the   reason   being   that   at   the   relevant   time   the   Tribunal   was   not<\/p>\n
sitting on account of certain enquiries pending against the Presiding<\/p>\n
Officer   of   the   Tribunal.   The   learned   counsel   also   submits   that   the<\/p>\n
writ   petition   was   filed   in   2003   and   at   this   point   of   time,   the<\/p>\n
petitioner   would   also   not   be   able   to   file   an   appeal   because   the<\/p>\n
period of limitation prescribed for  filing the appeal is long over.    I<\/p>\n
find that Ext.P6 order was passed on 1.5.03 and the petitioner has<\/p>\n
filed   this   writ   petition   on   30.6.03.   The   petitioner   would   have<\/p>\n
received   the   order   only   subsequent   to   1.5.03   and   therefore   it   is<\/p>\n
clear   that   this   original   petition   has   been   filed   within   the   period   of<\/p>\n
limitation prescribed for filing an appeal.   In such circumstances, I<\/p>\n
W.P.(c)21005\/03                                 3<\/span><\/p>\n
feel   that   it   would   not   be   in   the   interest   of   justice   to   relegate   the<\/p>\n
petitioner to the alternate remedy by way of filing an appeal to the<\/p>\n
Tribunal.  Therefore, I am inclined to consider this case on merits.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n
        4.      The learned counsel for the petitioner  submits that the<\/p>\n
reasons mentioned in Ext.P6 for arriving at the conclusion that there<\/p>\n
is   functional   integrality   between   the   two   firms   is   palpably<\/p>\n
inadequate   for   such   a   finding.    He   points   out   that   apart   from   the<\/p>\n
finding   that   the   partners   of   the   two   firms   are   closely   related   and<\/p>\n
that both the firms are using the same staircase for access to their<\/p>\n
establishments, there is absolutely no material on record to enter a<\/p>\n
finding   of   functional   integrality.     He   therefore   seeks   quashing   of<\/p>\n
Ext.P6 order holding that the two establishments are not liable to be<\/p>\n
clubbed together and declaring that the petitioner’s establishment is<\/p>\n
not liable to be covered under the Act.\n<\/p>\n
\n
        5.      Learned   counsel   for   the   Provident   Fund   Organisation<\/p>\n
strongly   disputes   the   contentions   of   the   petitioner.     He   points   out<\/p>\n
that   the   Enforcement   Officer,   who   has   visited   the   establishments,<\/p>\n
has   found   that   there   was   only   one   name   board   mentioning<\/p>\n
“Zeenath”,   and   no   other   name   board   was   found   in   both   the<\/p>\n
establishments.     He   would   submit   that   the   fact   that   both   the<\/p>\n
establishments are using a common staircase, which starts from the<\/p>\n
inside of the ground floor would show that once the establishment in<\/p>\n
the ground floor is closed there would not be any access to the 1st<\/p>\n
W.P.(c)21005\/03                             4<\/span><\/p>\n
floor which would mean that on closure of the establishment in the<\/p>\n
ground floor, the other would also have to be automatically closed<\/p>\n
down, which is a test to hold that one establishment  is functionally<\/p>\n
dependant on the other.\n<\/p>\n
\n
      6.      I   have   considered   the   rival   contentions   in   detail.     The<\/p>\n
reasons   stated   by   the   respondent   in   Ext.P6   for   arriving   at   the<\/p>\n
conclusion   that   there   is   functional   integralilty   between   the   two<\/p>\n
establishments are as follows:\n<\/p>\n
\n
                           After   a   lengthy   analysis   of   factual<\/p>\n
                    circumstance and also going through chief<\/p>\n
                    Examination            of         petitioner         Shri.<\/p>\n
                    Abdurahiman   Haji,   Managing   Partner   by<\/p>\n
                    Advocate   as   Exhibit-P.18   and   cross<\/p>\n
                    Examination of Shri. Abdurahiman Haji, by<\/p>\n
                    Enforcement   Officer   as   Exhibit.P19   the<\/p>\n
                    following facts are established.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                           1.      Though it cannot be said that<\/p>\n
                    the partners  of the  firm Zeenath  Textiles<\/p>\n
                    are   same   as   of   Zeenath   Garments   the<\/p>\n
                    partners   of   the   two   firms   are   close<\/p>\n
                    relatives.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
<\/blockquote>\n
                           2.      The   Managing   partner   of<\/p>\n
                    Zeenath Textiles M. Abdurahiman Haji and<\/p>\n
                    partner   of   Zeenath   Garments   M.   Abdul<\/p>\n
                    Gafoor are sons of Shri,. Mohammed Haji.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                           3.      Shri.   M.   Abdul   Salam,   Partner,<\/p>\n
                    Zeenath   Textiles   is   son   of   M.   Aboobacker<\/p>\n
                    Haji,   Managing   Partner   of   Zeenath<\/p>\n
                    Garments.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
<\/blockquote>\n
                           4.      Shri.   Shamer   Abdul   Rahiman,<\/p>\n
                    Partner of Zeenath Garments is son of Shri.<\/p>\n
                    M. Abdurahiman Haji.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
<\/blockquote>\n
                    5.       it was also established that there is<\/p>\n
                    no   access   to   M\/s.   Zeenath   Garments   in<\/p>\n
W.P.(c)21005\/03                           5<\/span><\/p>\n
                   First   Floor   through   the   staircase   in   the<\/p>\n
                   North   Esternmost   side   of   the   building,<\/p>\n
                   which cannot be utilized, as the passage to<\/p>\n
                   this   staircase   connecting   the   road   is<\/p>\n
                   completely   closed   due   to   construction   of<\/p>\n
                   another   building   is   also   agreed   by   Shri.<\/p>\n
                   Abdurahiman   Haji,   Managing   Partner<\/p>\n
                   (Question and Answer number 22 to 25 of<\/p>\n
                   Exhibit P-19) more over access to Zeenath<\/p>\n
                   Garments   through   Western   side   is   denied<\/p>\n
                   due   to   closed   wall   on   that   side   (Question<\/p>\n
                   and   answer   number   34   of   Exhibit   P19).<\/p>\n
                   The   only   staircase   to   Zeenath   Garments<\/p>\n
                   starts   from   inside   of   Zeenath   Textiles<\/p>\n
                   showroom   and   the   entrance   to   Zeenath<\/p>\n
                   Garments   in   1st  floor   is   without   any<\/p>\n
                   interlocking   facility   and   such   staircase   is<\/p>\n
                   built   only   in   easternmost   side   of   the   “U”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n                   shaped building and not on western side of<\/p>\n
                   the building (Question and Answer Number<\/p>\n
                   40 to 50, Question and Answer number 81<\/p>\n
                   in   Exhibit   P.19).     This   reveals   that   once<\/p>\n
                   the   shutter   of   M\/s.   Zeenath   Textiles   is<\/p>\n
                   closed   there   is   no   further   access   to   M\/s.<\/p>\n
                   Zeenath Garments at I Floor.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
                          6.      Initially   from   03\/1996   to<\/p>\n
                   03\/1998   Zeenath   Garments   and   Zeenath<\/p>\n
                   Textiles   had   only   one   power   connection<\/p>\n
                   and the electricity charges  were  paid only<\/p>\n
                   by Zeenath Textiles (As observed in Exhibit<\/p>\n
                   P-10 and Exhibit P-17.)”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n
      7.    From   the   same,   evidently   it   is   clear   that   he   has   not<\/p>\n
relied upon the report of the Enforcement Officer that there is only<\/p>\n
one name board mentioning ‘Zeenath’ for both the establishments.<\/p>\n
Admittedly   there   are   two   separate   establishments   by   name<\/p>\n
‘Zeenath Garments’ and ‘Zeenath Textiles’, which is not in dispute.<\/p>\n
Now as far as first four reasons are concerned, there cannot be any<\/p>\n
W.P.(c)21005\/03                             6<\/span><\/p>\n
doubt   that   those   by   themselves   are   not   reasons   for   holding   that<\/p>\n
there is functional integrality between the two establishments.  It is<\/p>\n
also settled law now that common ownership even would not lead to<\/p>\n
an automatic inference of functional integrality.  Therefore it has to<\/p>\n
be   examined   as   to   whether   those   reasons   coupled   with   the   other<\/p>\n
two reasons would lead to such a conclusion.\n<\/p>\n
\n
       8.     Admittedly,   the   building   is   not   owned   by   either   of   the<\/p>\n
two   establishments.     The   two   establishments   have   separate   lease<\/p>\n
deeds  in   respect   of   their   respective   portion   of   the   building.    They<\/p>\n
have   separate   registrations,   licences,   accounts   etc   and   the<\/p>\n
respondent   has   not   pointed   out   any   other   thing   common   to   both.<\/p>\n
There is also no allegation of transfer of employees or financial inter<\/p>\n
dependence.   Of   course,   it   is   true   that   the   petitioner   is   using   a<\/p>\n
staircase for access to their establishment which starts from inside<\/p>\n
of the establishment on the ground floor and therefore if the ground<\/p>\n
floor is closed, the petitioner would not get access to the first floor.<\/p>\n
I am of opinion that this is not what is contemplated by the test of<\/p>\n
functional   integrality   to   see   whether   on   closure   of   one,   the   other<\/p>\n
would   also   automatically   close   down.     That   test   should   itself   be<\/p>\n
relating to the functional integrality between the two establishments<\/p>\n
meaning   thereby   that   the   business   itself   must  be   inter-dependant<\/p>\n
on   each   other   and   not   merely   the   physical   access   to   the   two<\/p>\n
establishments.  When the two persons, who are conducting the two<\/p>\n
W.P.(c)21005\/03                                7<\/span><\/p>\n
separate business of their own, joins together to take on rent two<\/p>\n
floors of the same building which have only one staircase  that too<\/p>\n
starting   from   inside   the   shutter   of   the   ground   floor,   it   cannot   be<\/p>\n
stated that, that amounts to a presumption of automatic closure of<\/p>\n
the   one   when   the   shutter   of   the   other   is   downed.     This   is   all  the<\/p>\n
more so since as observed by the respondent himself in Ext.P6, the<\/p>\n
situation   arose   because   passage   to   the   staircase   connecting   the<\/p>\n
road   was   completely   closed   due   to   the   construction   of   another<\/p>\n
building apparently by the owner of the building.   As such I am of<\/p>\n
opinion that the mere fact that the common stair case starts from<\/p>\n
the   inside   of   the   ground   floor   is   not   at   all   a   factor   much   less   a<\/p>\n
determining   factor   to   presume   functional   integrality   between   the<\/p>\n
two establishments.\n<\/p>\n
\n
       9.      The 6th ground also does not appear to be supportive of<\/p>\n
the conclusion of the respondent. Admittedly the building  does not<\/p>\n
belong  to  the  petitioner   or   the  other   establishment.     If  the  owner<\/p>\n
has provided only one power connection and the electricity charges<\/p>\n
are   paid   by   one   that   does   not   essentially   lead   to   a   conclusion   of<\/p>\n
functional integrality between the two.     It is perfectly open to the<\/p>\n
two establishments to share the electricity charges.<\/p>\n
       In the above circumstances, I am satisfied that going by the<\/p>\n
reasons mentioned in Ext.P6, no conclusion of functional integrality<\/p>\n
can be arrived at on the basis of the dictum laid down in the various<\/p>\n
W.P.(c)21005\/03                           8<\/span><\/p>\n
decisions   of   the   Supreme   Court   and   this   Court.     Therefore   I   am<\/p>\n
satisfied that the reasons mentioned in Ext.P6 are not sufficient to<\/p>\n
come to a conclusion that there is functional integrality between the<\/p>\n
two establishments.  Resultantly  the clubbing of the establishments<\/p>\n
together   for   the   purpose   coverage   under   the   Act   is   without<\/p>\n
justification. Since the respondent has no case that without clubbing<\/p>\n
together   the   petitioner’s   establishment   is   liable   to   be   covered<\/p>\n
separately, the petitioner’s establishment is not liable to be covered<\/p>\n
under the Act. Therefore, I am satisfied that Ext.P6 order has been<\/p>\n
passed   on   extraneous   considerations   and   therefore   is   liable   to   be<\/p>\n
set aside.  I do so, but without any order as to costs.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n\n\n                                                S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE\n\n\n\n\n\nAcd\n\n\nW.P.(c)21005\/03    9\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Zeenath Garments vs Asst.Provident Fund … on 20 March, 2007 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WP(C) No. 21005 of 2003(A) 1. ZEENATH GARMENTS, UNEEN TOWER … Petitioner Vs 1. ASST.PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.P.GOPINATH For Respondent :SRI.R.SUDHIR, SC, P.F. The Hon’ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN Dated […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-255117","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nZeenath Garments vs Asst.Provident Fund ... on 20 March, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/zeenath-garments-vs-asst-provident-fund-on-20-march-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Zeenath Garments vs Asst.Provident Fund ... on 20 March, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/zeenath-garments-vs-asst-provident-fund-on-20-march-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2007-03-19T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-12-19T15:10:41+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/zeenath-garments-vs-asst-provident-fund-on-20-march-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/zeenath-garments-vs-asst-provident-fund-on-20-march-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Zeenath Garments vs Asst.Provident Fund … on 20 March, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-03-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-12-19T15:10:41+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/zeenath-garments-vs-asst-provident-fund-on-20-march-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1751,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/zeenath-garments-vs-asst-provident-fund-on-20-march-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/zeenath-garments-vs-asst-provident-fund-on-20-march-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/zeenath-garments-vs-asst-provident-fund-on-20-march-2007\",\"name\":\"Zeenath Garments vs Asst.Provident Fund ... on 20 March, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-03-19T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-12-19T15:10:41+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/zeenath-garments-vs-asst-provident-fund-on-20-march-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/zeenath-garments-vs-asst-provident-fund-on-20-march-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/zeenath-garments-vs-asst-provident-fund-on-20-march-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Zeenath Garments vs Asst.Provident Fund … on 20 March, 2007\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Zeenath Garments vs Asst.Provident Fund ... on 20 March, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/zeenath-garments-vs-asst-provident-fund-on-20-march-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Zeenath Garments vs Asst.Provident Fund ... on 20 March, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/zeenath-garments-vs-asst-provident-fund-on-20-march-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-03-19T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-12-19T15:10:41+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/zeenath-garments-vs-asst-provident-fund-on-20-march-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/zeenath-garments-vs-asst-provident-fund-on-20-march-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Zeenath Garments vs Asst.Provident Fund … on 20 March, 2007","datePublished":"2007-03-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-12-19T15:10:41+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/zeenath-garments-vs-asst-provident-fund-on-20-march-2007"},"wordCount":1751,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/zeenath-garments-vs-asst-provident-fund-on-20-march-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/zeenath-garments-vs-asst-provident-fund-on-20-march-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/zeenath-garments-vs-asst-provident-fund-on-20-march-2007","name":"Zeenath Garments vs Asst.Provident Fund ... on 20 March, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-03-19T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-12-19T15:10:41+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/zeenath-garments-vs-asst-provident-fund-on-20-march-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/zeenath-garments-vs-asst-provident-fund-on-20-march-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/zeenath-garments-vs-asst-provident-fund-on-20-march-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Zeenath Garments vs Asst.Provident Fund … on 20 March, 2007"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/255117","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=255117"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/255117\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=255117"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=255117"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=255117"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}