S.K.KESHOTE, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the entire record of the writ petition and the memo of special appeal. In the writ petition, out of which this special appeal arises, challenge was made by the petitioner appellant to the order dated December 5, 1979 of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Rajasthan, Jaipur, the respondent No. 1 (for short, the respondent No. 1, Commissioner) under which it declined to grant the benefit of infancy as provided under Section 16(l)(b) of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short, 'the Act, 1952'). The writ petition has been dismissed by the learned single Judge under the impugned order, thus this special appeal.
(2.) Whether a particular establishment is entitled for the infancy benefits as provided under Section 16(l)(b) of the Act, 1952, is purely a question of fact. The respondent No. 1, Commissioner, on the basis of appreciation of material produced on the record, recorded a finding of fact that the factory started at Jaipur by the establishment is not new one. We do not find any perversity in the appreciation of evidence made by the respondent No. 1, Commissioner. There was material on the record to substantiate this conclusion reached on the question of fact by the respondent No.1, Commissioner.
(3.) The set up was started of re-rolling mill at Bundi in the name of Shree Bhagwati Re-rolling Mill in July, 1972. There occurred labour strike in January, 1974 and there were power disconnections. On being put by the Court to the learned counsel for the petitioner- appellant whether the outstanding dues of the then Electricity Board of the establishment at Bundi have been cleared by the appellant, he is unable to give any reply. A further question has been put to the learned counsel for the appellant as to what has been done with the rest of the machineries, he has shown his inability to give any reply.;