V.P.TYAGI, J. - (1.) THIS writ application filed by Hariram Nathani under Article 326 of the Constitution arises out of the following circumstances.
(2.) PETITIONER 's father Rai Bahadur Rameshwar Nathanl has a partner in the firm known as Messers. Duduwala and Company which used to carry on the mining operations of mica in nine different areas leased out to it in the district of Bhilwara Petitioner's father died on 18th January, 1957 and with his death the partnership came to an and. The surviving partner Ram Kumar Agarwal then filed a suit in the Calcutta High Court for the dissolution of partnership. That suit ended in a compromise and according to the compromise decree joint receivers and managers of the business of the firm Messers Duduwala and Company were appointed. In Clause (7) of the said decree it was provided that the joint receivers shall divide the present mining fields into five equal blocks and Ram Kumar Agerwal will have the first option to choose one of the blocks for himself and the remsining four blacks will be taken over by the four sons, including the petitioner, of late Rameshwar Nathani. The mandate of the decree was consequently carried out by the joint receivers and out of five blocks one block was handed over to the petitioner and the mining lease in that block was granted by the State in favour of the petitioner. The petitioner then started the mining operetion in the said block and it is said that some of the employees of the dissolved from of Messers. Duduwala and Company were engaged by the petitioner. According to the petitioner, he set up a new astablianment for carrying out the mining operations of mica in the block received by him from the joint receivers after the lease was senctioned by the State Government in his favour, that is, on 23rd of October, 1965. The case of the petitioner is that the present establishment of the petitioner has nothing to do with the earlier establisment of Messers. Duduwala and Company but still the respondent No. 1 Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Rajasthan. served the petitioner with a show cause notice why the contribution payable by the employer towords the provident fund be not determined under Section 7A of the Employees Provident Fund Act 1952 (hereinafter refered to as the Act). The petitioner claimed infancy benefits under Section 16 of Act but the respondent No. 1 held that petitioner's establishment was not an infant establishment and, therefore, it was not entitled to get any benefit under Section 16(i) of the Act and directed the petitioner vide order dated 24 -2 -1967 (Ex. d) to deposit the amount of Rs. 5173 10 Paisas as employer's contribution towards the provident fund under the Act. This order of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner has been challenged by the petitioner, inser alia, on the grounds that the petitioner's establishment under the circumstance of this case cannot be said to be an old establishment because there is nothing in common with the non establishment and the firm Messers. Duduwala and Company and that the petitioner was antitled to the protection embodied in Section 16(i) of the Act treating the petitioner's establishment as an infant one.
(3.) IN its reply filed by the respondend No. 1 the facts as mentioned by the petitioner as to how he started working the block received as an heir of the deceased partner of Messers. Duduwala and Company have not been controverted. The case of the respondent is that a mere change of ownership, whether by transfer or by death of the previous owner or by some other transaction does not affect the position 'of the establishment. According to the respondent No. 1, the dissolution of the partnership of Messers. Duduwala and Company and the renewal of a fresh lease of the lands operated by the names of the individual heirs of the deceased partner could not bring the case of the petitioner under the purview of Section 16 of the Act and, therefore, he cannot claim his establishment to be treated as a new establishment.;