P NARAYAN NAIR Vs. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was the proprietor of an industrial establishment, known by the name "desabandhu Printing Works". According to him it was set up and started on 29-5-1963, and closed down in September, 1967 after retrenching all the workmen. There was a limited company by the name Swaraj Industries Private Limited which was conducting different branches of business. Its main business was running a printing establishment under the style "swaraj Printing Works" and publishing a Malayalam daily by name "desabandhu". The Swaraj Industries Private Ltd. , was wound up by this Court in Company Petition No. 22 of 1961. The official liquidator terminated the services of all the employees of the company and fully settled their claims. The Swaraj Printing Works and rights in respect of "desabandhu" were leased out by the official liquidator to different persons ; and the lessees conducted the press and the publication of the paper for some time. Then the official liquidator decided to dispose of the assets of the company by public auction ; and he published a notice, Ext. P-l dated 20-4-1963, advertising them for sale in separate lots. There are three schedules to Ext. P-1, Schedule A is the goodwill of "desabandhu", Schedule B is the press machinery and the printing tools, and Schedule C is furniture. The goodwill of "desabandhu", and three items of the machinery were purchased by the petitioner in public auction. The petitioner purchased other necessary machines from outside, and started the business "desabandhu Printing Works" with effect from 295-1963. He commenced publication of the newspaper "desabandhu" with effect from 30-5-1963, which was till the previous day conducted by the lessee from the official liquidator. The petitioner also employed some of the old employees of the Swaraj Industries Private Ltd. The Regional Inspector of Factories, by his letter Ext. P-2 dated 20-8-1963, called upon the petitioner to register the above establishment under the Factories Act as a new factory; and the petitioner accordingly applied for issue of a fresh licence.

(2.) WHILE the petitioner was running this business as stated above, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Kerala called upon the petitioner to comply with the provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds Act and the scheme thereunder, stating that he was the owner of the Swaraj Printing Works, which was an establishment covered by the Act with effect from 1956. The petitioner wrote to the Regional Commissioner pointing out the winding up of the Swaraj Industries Private Ltd. , and the closing down of the Swaraj Printing Works by the official liquidator, and informing him that the petitioner's establishment "desabandhu Printing Works" was a new establishment, and it was entitled to the juvenile protection under Section 16 (1) (b) of the Act. The petitioner's claim was rejected by the Regional Commissioner, who made persistent attempts without success to recover contributions from the petitioner as if "desabandhu Printing Works" is the same establishment as the Swaraj Printing Works. The petitioner had to file two writ petitions, O. P. Nos. 2459 and 3008 of 1966, challenging the validity of the proceedings taken by the Regional Commissioner against him. The first petition was allowed ; and the Regional Director was directed to adjudicate the question of the petitioner's liability, after hearing the '. petitioner. The second petition related only to the proceedings taken by the Regional Commissioner for the contributions claimed in respect of February and March of 1966. When this petition came up for hearing, the petitioner submitted that he was going to file an application under Section 19-A of the Act and seeking adjudication of the Central Government as to the date from which the establishment has to be started ; and in the light of that submission, that writ petition was dismissed. This Court also directed that proceedings for recovery of the contributions shall be stayed till the adjudication of the matter by the Central Government, provided the petitioner furnished security for Rs. 1000. Accordingly the petitioner moved the Central Government, and that application is still pending. The petitioner did not furnish security as directed by the Court; and thereupon the Regional Commissioner restarted proceedings against him. By his order Ext. P-7 dated 23-1-1970, the Regional Commissioner held that the Desabandhu Printing Works was only a continuation of the Swaraj Printing Works, that the petitioner was not, therefore, entitled to the protection of Section 16 (1) (b) of the Act, and that he was liable to pay a sum of Rs. 17,468. 30 in respect of the period from June, 1963 to May, 1966. The above order was followed by a notice, Ext, P-8 dated 2nd February, 1970 calling upon-the petitioner to pay the aforesaid amount within seven days of the receipt of the said notice, and informing him that, if he did not comply with the same proceedings would be taken against him under the Revenue Recovery Act. Thereupon the petitioner has filed this writ petition to quash Exts. P-l and P-8.

(3.) SECTION 16 (1) (b) of the Act reads :