( 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 High court by the impugned judgment has taken the view that the respondents concern was entitled to the infancy benefit as it was a new concern and the earlier partnership business run by the erstwhile partnership concern was already closed and a new business was run by the new concern which entitled it to claim the infancy benefit. The view taken by the High court is based on relevant facts which have been noted in the impugned judgment. Earlier, the firm was Sarathi and Co. There were three partners constituting the said firm. The partners were, (i) Shri A. R. Sahasranam, (ii) Shri A. P. Keswavan, and (iii) Smt A. R. S. Thulasi Bai. Incidentally, the first partner was the father of the present respondent. The business of the said firm could not be carried out further as the respondents father who was the managing partner of the said firm died on 6/11/1977. The business was closed. In view of the closure of the said business, all workmen earlier employed by the said firm were given closure compensation as per the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The workmen accepted the said closure compensation. The union of workmen representing them sought to challenge the said closure. The industrial dispute raised by them was not 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. The workmen accepted the said finding of the State government. Thereafter, the respondent who was one of the sons of the deceased partnerof the firm, Sarathi and 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. On these facts, the High court has noted that it could not be held that the business of the old firm was continued by the respondent in the new firm wherein the partners were entirely different and even though some of the workmen might have been employed by the new firm, it cannot be said that the old business was continued by the new concern. It was also observed that merely because the new entity is utilising the licence exploited by the old firm and the name of the new firm is identical with the name of the old firm and items of machinery utilised by the old firm have been availed of by the new concern, it cannot be said that the said business had continued and therefore, the claim of infancy benefit was not available to the new concern. These are pure finding of facts based on relevant evidence. In our view, it requires no interference under Article 136 of the Constitution.

( 2 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellants relied upon two decisions of this court, in the case of Sayaji Mills Ltd. v.