( 1 ) 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 Regional Provident Fund Commissioner had taken the view that the respondent had continued 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 could not be claimed by the respondents concern as per the provisions of Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter to be referred to as "the Act" ). The respondents contention 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 authority functioning under the Act repelled that contention by taking the view that the respondents concern was not entitled to such benefit as it was the continuation of the erstwhile firms business. The respondent carried the matter in a writ petition before the High court. The