The surrender of the lease and change in ownership did not establish a new factory. The factory's identity was not affected, and it continued its operations without interruption.

1. In 1942 one K.T. Paul and his six brothers started a handloom textile factory which they ran until about March 1948. In January, 1949, the seven brothers formed a private limited company with one of the brothers, by name Cherukutty, as the managing director. This company took, the factory on lease and worked it until 1-11-1953 when it surrendered the lease The provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds Act, XIX of 1952 were applied to the factory while it was being run by the Eastern Agencies Ltd., and that company was contributing to the Employees' Provident Fund as required by the Act and the scheme framed thereunder. On the termination of the lease of the company, the seven brothers formed themselves into a partnership which they called the "Kunnath Textiles" and they took over the factory which they continued to run with the same employees (although they now choose to call them new workers) making the same goods and with no change whatsoever as to its character. They however discontinued sending the returns and making the contributions required by the Act, and when called upon by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner to comply with the provisions of the Act contended that theirs was an infant factory within the meaning of s.16 of the Act having been established only on 1-11-1953 and that the provisions of the Act were not applicable to the factory until it came of age on 1-11-1956. This contention was overruled by the Commissioner by his letter dated 27-8-1954 on the ground that what had happened was only a mere change in management and not the establishment of a new factory. The firm demanded a hearing That was given, but the Commissioner adhered to his former view and passed an order to that effect on 5-4-1955. Thereupon the firm filed a writ petition, No. 76 of 1955, for the quashing the aforesaid order of the Commissioner, but later withdrew the petition saying that it proposed to move the Central Government for a direction under S.19A of the Act. That the firm did but the direction it obtained from the Central Government (communicated by a letter dated 16-10-1955) was not favourable. It confirmed the view of the Commissioner and required that the factory be brought under the provisions of the Act and of the scheme framed thereunder with effect from the 1st November 1953: As a result thereof, the Commissioner, it would appear, threatened to recover the contributions due under the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act. Therefore the firm, represented by one of its partners, Cherukutty, came forward with the present petition under Art.226 of the Constitution seeking an order prohibiting the Commissioner from taking any steps to recover the contributionS.The petition having been dismissed by a single judge of this court, the firm has come up on appeal.

2. From a consideration of -the bare facts as stated above it seems to us beyond doubt that the holding of the learned single judge that no new factory was established on 1-11-1953, that the factory he was dealing with was the same as the one in respect of which contributions were being made by the Eastern Agencies Ltd., from 1-11-1952 to 1-11-1953, that the firm represented by Cherukutty was the employer in relation to that factory, and that the order dated 6-10-1955 by the Central Government embodied a correct decision, must be upheld. Although in strict legal theory the Kunnath Textiles is a different legal entity from the Eastern Agencies Ltd., the ownership of the factory was throughout vested in the seven brothers and, as remarked by the learned single judge, it is significant that the licence for working the factory has throughout remained in the name of Cherukutty who was the managing director of the Eastern Agencies Ltd., and is now the managing partner of the Kunnath Textiles. The so-called surrender of the lease was only a notional transaction by which the seven brothers in the garb of the Eastern Agencies Ltd. made ever the factory as a worki