Torino Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India 2025 INSC 849- S. 2A EPF Act
Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 - Section 2A - The contention that Section 2A cannot be applied if ostensibly two separately registered entities under the Companies Act are involved, has only to be stated to be rejected - Each case has to be decided on its own peculiar facts, regard being had to the scheme and object of the statute under consideration and in the context of the claim. In a given case, unity of ownership, management and control may be the important test, while in certain other cases Functional Integrality or general unity may be the determinative consideration. In some instances, unity of employment could be the most vital test - While each aspect may not by itself be conclusive, what is important is to consider cumulatively the facts while applying the different tests. The employer/management’s own conduct in mixing up or not mixing up the capital, staff and management could in a given case be a significant pointer. Mere separate registration under the different statutes cannot be a basis to claim that the units are separate. Similarly, maintenance of separate accounts and independent financial statement is also not conclusive. The onus lies on the employer/management to lead necessary evidence to bring home their contention. (Para 31-34)
Case Info
Case Name and Neutral Citation
- Case Name: M/S Torino Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India & Ors.
- Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 849
- Civil Appeal No.: 9540 of 2018
Coram (Judges)
- Justice K.V. Viswanathan
- Justice Joymalya Bagchi
Judgment Date
- Date of Judgment: July 15, 2025
Caselaws and Citations Referred
The judgment refers to several Supreme Court decisions, including:
- Management of Pratap Press, New Delhi vs. Secretary, Delhi Press Workers’ Union, Delhi and Another
- AIR 1960 SC 1213
- Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and Another vs. Dharamsi Morarji Chemical Co. Ltd.
- (1998) 2 SCC 446
- Regional Provident Fund Commr. vs. Raj’s Continental Exports (P) Ltd
- (2007) 4 SCC 239
- Associated Cement Companies Limited, Chaibassa Cement Works, Jhinkpani vs. Workmen
- AIR 1960 SC 56
- L.N. Gadodia & Sons vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner
- (2011) 13 SCC 517
- Shree Vishal Printers Ltd. vs. Provident Fund Commissioner
- (2019) 9 SCC 508
- Regional Provident Fund Commissioner vs. Naraini Udyog
- (1996) 5 SCC 522
- Sayaji Mills Ltd. vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner
- 1984 Supp. SCC 610
- Honorary Secretary, South India Millowners’ Association and Others vs. The Secretary, Coimbatore District Textile Workers’ Union
- [1962] Supp. 2 SCR 926
- Management of Wenger and Co. vs. Their Workmen
- (1963) Supp. 2 SCR 862
- Rajasthan Prem Krishan Goods Transport Co. vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, New Delhi and Others
- (1996) 9 SCC 454
- Sumangali vs. Regional Director, Employees’ State Insurance Corporation
- (2008) 9 SCC 106
Statutes/Laws Referred
- Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (EPF Act)
- Section 2A
- Section 7A
- Section 7-I
- Section 16(1)(d)
- Constitution of India
- Article 227
- Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940
- Factories Act, 1948
- Central Sales Tax Act
- Central Excise Act
- Service Tax
- Employees’ State Insurance Act (ESI)
- Companies Act
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872
- Section 106
- Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
- Section 25-E(iii)
- Delhi Shops and Establishments Act, 1954 (7 of 1954)
