- (1.)This writ appeal by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner is against the order dated 18th February, 1982, passed by the learned single Judge allowing the writ petition of the respondent and setting aside the orders made by the appellant under S. 7A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter called "the Act").
(2.)The brief facts of the case are these :
There are two cinema theatres in Mangalore called "Rupavani and New Chitra Talkies". They were brought within the purview of the Act and the Scheme framed thereunder with effect from 1st August, 1963. In or about the year 1969, the proprietrix of the said establishments, viz., Smt. Ratna Bai, constituted a partnership with her children and continued to manage both the theatres. In the year 1973, the said partnership was dissolved and the assets and liabilities were divided equally among the partners. Consequently, there were two partnership firms called M/s. Ratna Enterprises, the respondent in this appeal, and M/s. Vittaldas Pai and Sons. The New Chitra Talkies went to the ownership of the former and the Rupavani Talkies to the latter. Again, the question of applicability of the provisions of the Act in respect of the New Chitra Talkies was raised before the appellant-Commissioner. The contention of the respondent was that, after the dissolution of the partnership firm and separation of ownership of the two theatres, the respondent did not have in its employment twenty or more persons and, therefore, the provisions of the Act and the Scheme thereunder were not applicable. The Commissioner in his order noted that the provisions of the Act had been brought into force in respect of the employees of both the theatres right from 1st August, 1963, and therefore, even if the management of the two theatres was separated and there were less than 20 employees in each of the cinema houses, the provisions of the Act would not cease to apply in view of S. 1(5) of the Act. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent presented the writ petition.

(3.)The learned single Judge was of the view that, apart from the question of dissolution of partnership, there were several other contention raised by the respondent and, therefore, as those contentions had not been considered by the Commissioner, the order were set aside. Accordingly, the orders were set aside and the matter was remitted to the appellant. It is against the said order of the learned single Judge, this writ appeal has been presented.