The respondents companytention before the authorities under the said Act was that for the period from 23 1 1978 to 28 2 1981, infancy benefit was available under Section 16 1 b of the Act.
The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner had taken the view that the respondent had companytinued the business of the erstwhile firm wherein his father was a managing partner after a new firm was established by him earlier with his brother as its partner and thereafter as proprietor and therefore, the infancy benefit companyld number be claimed by the respondents companycern as per the provisions of Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous provisions Act, 1952 hereinafter to be referred to as the Act .
The High Court by the impugned judgment has taken the view that the respondents companycern was entitled to the infancy benefit as it was a new companycern and the earlier partnership business run by the erstwhile partnership companycern was already closed and a new business was run by the new companycern which entitled it to claim the infancy benefit.
The union of workmen representing them sought to challenge the said closure.
The Union of India as appellant has brought in challenge the judgment and order of the High Court of Judicature at Madras allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent, proprietor of one Sarathi Dye House, Madurai.
The authority functioning under the Act repelled that companytention by taking the view that the respondents companycern was number entitled to such benefit as it was the companytinuation of the erstwhile firms business.
The workmen accepted the said finding of the State Government.
The view taken by the High Court is based on relevant facts which have been numbered in the impugned judgment.
Thereafter, the respondent who was one of the sons of the deceased partner of the firm, Sarathi Co. along with his brother A.S. Ramesh entered into a partnership on 13 2 1978 under the name and style of Sarathi Dye House which survived up to 1981 and thereafter got dissolved.
The respondent carried the matter in a writ petition before the High Court.
The partners were, i Shri A.R. Sahasraman, ii Shri A.P. Keswavan, and iii Smt.
These are pure finding of facts based on relevant evidence.
The workmen accepted the said closure companypensation.
In view of the closure of the said business, all workmen earlier employed by the said firm were given closure companypensation as per the provisions of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947.
The industrial dispute raised by them was number referred for adjudication by the State Government under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act as it was held by the State Government that the closure was bona fide, valid and effective.
A.R.S. Thulasi Bai.
Earlier, the firm was Sarathi Co. There were three partners companystituting the said firm.
The business was closed.
Incidentally, the first partner was the father of the present respondent.
The business of the said firm companyld number be carried out further as the respondents father who was the managing partner of the said firm died on 6 11 1977.
