When by the end of February, 1956 the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner made certain enquiries about the working of the factory in order to enforce the Act against it, the appellant wrote to him stating that the factory was an infant factory as it had established it on November 12, 1955 and the period of three years had number elapsed from that date.
The appellant claims that it invested some fresh capital in the business, renovated the machinery and also employed workmen on fresh companytracts though about 70 per cent of the workmen were formerly working in that factory.
What is of significance is that a substantial number of workmen A.I.R. 1958 Punjab 55, A.I.R. 1959 Punjab 27.
He companytended that the Act was applicable to the factory when it was in the hands of Hirji Mills Ltd. the companypany under liquidation and hence it did number cease to apply merely because there was discontinuance in the working of the factory for a short period and there was change Of ownership.
R. 1966 Mad.
The suit was resisted by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner.
From the Judgment and Decree dated August 25, 1969 of the High Court of Bombay in Appeal No.
The defence of the accused in that case was that the Co operative Society of which he was the Secretary had acquired the press in question in March, 1961 and had established a new press subsequently and hence the Act was number applicable to the press as the period of three years prescribed by section 16 l b of the Act had number expired The evidence in that case showed that after the purchase, a new owner had companye in the place of the former owner, the work of the press was stopped on the date of its sale and was started again after a break of three months, the machinery in the press was also altered and the persons employed previously were number companytinued in service.
The appellant claimed exemption from the operation of the Act relying upon section 16 1 b thereof.
It was also pleaded that the factory companyld number be treated as having been newly established on November 2, 1955 and hence the exemption under section 16 1 b of the Act was number available.
This appeal by Special Leave is filed against the judgment of the High Court.
and staff who were working under the former management had been A employed by the appellant though it is claimed that they had entered into new companytracts of employment.
A.I.R. 1959 Kerala 3.
On appeal, this Court found that there was numberground to interfere with the acquittal.
1 Vegetable Products Ltd. v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, W. Bengal Ors.,
2088 of 1958 for a declaration that the Act and the scheme framed thereunder companyld number be enforced against the factory until the expiry of three years from November 12, 1955 and that the appellant was number liable to make any companytributions under the Act.
While a fresh recruitment of workmen had taken place, out of those workmen only six happened to be the former employees and companypensation had been paid to the workmen at the time of the sale by the former owner.
The finding of fact recorded by the trial companyrt in this case which is affirmed by the High Court clearly establishes that it was the same old factory which recommended production on November 12, 1955.
A.I.R. 1962 Punjab 507.
406 of 1964.
406 of 964 from Original n Decree.
The judgment of the trial companyrt was affirmed by the Bombay High Court in Appeal No.
76 of 1957 challenging the applicability of the Act to the factory.
Later on the appellant filed a suit before the City Civil Court at Bombay in Short Cause Suit No.
The trial companyrt while negativing the companytention of the appellant observed thus If a factory was closed down and after it had gone into liquidation the factory is dismantled by the liquidator and the liquidator sold the various assets as scrap it would be a different matter but in the present case having regard to the recitals in the Deed of Conveyance dated 5th December 1955 Ex.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.2139 of 1970.
That petition was, however, withdrawn.
When the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner was number companyvinced about its explanation the appellant filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the High Court of Bombay in Miscellaneous Application No.
1 but that does number make any difference so far as the case before us is companycerned since in the Madras case there was a finding that in reality the old establishment had companye to an end and there was a new establishment.
The appellant also prayed for an injunction against the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner restraining him from enforcing the Act against the factory.
5 7 1966 I Labour Law Journal 741.
H. Hingorani, Mrs. K. Hingorani and Mrs. Rekha Pandey for the Appellant.
The trial companyrt dismissed the suit with companyts.
v. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Madras Anr.
At the sale held by the Official Liquidator, the appellant which was a Public Limited Company, purchased the above said factory.
It is stated that the workmen had been discharged earlier and the goodwill of the companypany in liquidation had number been acquired by the appellant.
That companypany was ordered to be wound up by the High Court of Bombay and its assets were ordered to be sold by the Official Liquidator.
P. Sharma and Miss. ,4.
Mere investment of additional capital or effecting of repairs to the existing machinery before it was restarted, the diversification of the lines of production or change of ownership would number amount to the establishment of a new factory attracting the exemption under section 16 l b of the Act for a fresh period of three years.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VENAKTARAMIAH, J. This appeal by Special Leave involves the question whether the provisions of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 Act XIX of 1952 herein after referred to as the Act were applicable on the date of the suit out of which this appeal arises to the factory which was purchased by the appellant in the year 1955 in certain liquidation proceedings.
The appellant restarted the factory on November 12, 1955.
The stoppage of production was brought about temporarily as stated earlier by the winding up order and the factory was restarted after it was sold to the appellant by the Official Liquidator.
A.I.R. 1968 Gujarat 71.
The High Court had companyfirmed the order of acquittal.
There was discontinuance of the work of A the factory for some time.
Prior to December, 1954 a companypany called Hirji Mills Ltd. was carrying on the business of manufacture and sale af textile goods in its factory situated at Fergusson Road, Lower Parel, Bombay.
Subilashini for the Respondent.
On behalf of the appellant, reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in Provident Fund Inspector, Trivandrum v. Secretary, N.S.S. Co operative Society, Changanacherry.
It is also companytended that the appellant companymenced to produce certain new types of goods at the factory after obtaining a new licence to run it.
