Chandra Reddi, C.J.

This appeal is brought against the judgment of Srinivasan, J. declining to quash the order of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner calling upon the appellant to make contribution to the employees' provident fund.

The appellant, a limited company, which was incorporated on 27 April 1959, took on lease a building with equipment known as the "Rajakumari Theatre" from the owner thereof. This theatre was leased by the owner to one Om Prakash Guptha, and, on the expiry of the lease, the owner obtained possession of the property by instituting proceedings in the High Court. Thereafter, lease of this theatre was granted to the appellant in June, 1960, as stated above. When the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner required the appellant to make the contribution under the Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1952, from 16 June, 1960, the date on which he started the cinema shows under the name and style of Sahani Cinemas, it was urged on behalf of the appellant that since the company newly started business only with effect from 16 June 1960, it was entitled to protection for five years from 16 June 1960. Disagreeing with this contention, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner affirmed his earlier order for contribution to the employees' provident fund. His view was that the Rajakumari Theatre was in existence for a number of years and, consequently, the fact that the appellant had taken a lease since 1960 did not mean that a new establishment had come into existence on that date. It was to remove this order of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner that the jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution was invoked. Srinivasan, J., who heard the petition. Declined to interfere with that order as he concurred in the opinion of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner. It is this conclusion of the learned Judge that is assailed in this writ appeal.It is maintained by Sri N. C. Raghavachari in support of this appeal that as the appellant was a new company incorporated for running the business in June 1960, the exemption contemplated by the Act should be extended to this company since the establishment should be deemed to have come into existence on that date. In other words, his contention is that the company running the theatre is an establishment within the contemplation of the Act and since protection is to be given to the persons that are associated with the concern, the exemption should be extended with reference to the date on which the business was started by the person and not with reference to the date on which the theatre came into being. Sri Raghavachari argued that it is not the building and equipment that constitute the establishment but it is the personnel that operates the theatre that constitutes the establishment. To substantiate this argument, he relies on a judgment of Anantanarayanan, J., in Writ Petition No. 1018 of 1962 [since reported in

Since the answer to the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant depends upon the relevant statutory provisions, it is useful to look at them here. It is S.16 of the Employees' Provident Funds Act that exempts certain industrial organizations from the application of this Act for a certain period. That sectionruns as follows :

"16. (1) This Act shall not apply -

(a) to any establishment registered under the Co-operative Societies Act, 1912, or under any other law for the time being in force in any State relating to co-operative societies, employing less than fifty persons and working without the aid of power; or

(b) to any other establishment employing fifty or more persons or twenty or more, but less than fifty persons until the expiry of three years in the case of the former and five years in the case of the latter. From the date on which the establishment is, or has been, set up.Explanation. - For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that an establishment shall not be deemed to be newly set up merely by reason of a change in