SANJAY AUTOMOBILES Vs. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A short question in this petition is whether the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the provisions of Sec. 16(1) (b) of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, hereinafter referred to as the Act. The petitioner's case was that its establishment was a new establishment set up in May 1969 and was as such exempt from the provisions of the Act for a period of five years. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, respondent no. 1, has held that it was not a new establishment, but there was only a change of ownership. The business of servicing automobiles and allied work was being carried on in the same premises earlier also and the same business was being continued by a new set of persons from May, 1969. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner has determined a sum of Rs. 40, 517.00 payable by the petitioner as employers' and employees' share of Provident Fund contributions including Family Pension Fund contributions for the period May 1969 to June 1974 and a further sum of Rs. 1215.50 as administrative charges for the same period. A direction was also issued by the order dated 4th October, 1974 to deposit the aforesaid amount in the State Bank of India within 15 days of the receipt of the order. It is against the above order that the present writ petition has been filed.

(2.) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that no case has been made out for interference with the order of respondent no. 1, dated 4th October, 1974. We are further of the opinion that the provisions of Sec. 16 (1) (b) of the Act would not be applicable to the case of the petitioner. Our reasons are as follows.

(3.) REFERENCE may be made to the case of P. F. Inspector v. N. S. S. Cooperative Society, AIR 1971 SC 82, where their lordships held that the benefit of non-applicability of Sec. 16 (1) (b) of the Act would be given to the establishment, as it was a new establishment. In that case it was found that the business of the Press had been sold. The work in the Press was stopped on sale and was re-started after a break of about three months, the machinery in the Press was altered and the persons previously employed were not continued in service and among the new recruits were six previous employees and compensation had been paid to the workmen by the previous owner at the time of sale. In the present case, the facts show that the premises, machinery and the equipments all remained the same. Some of the old employees also continued and there was no perceptible break in the continuance of the business. The Supreme Court case is, therefore, distinguishable on facts.