A change in ownership of an establishment does not necessarily mean that the establishment is a new one for the purposes of the Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1952. The court must consider all the facts and circumstances of the case to determine whether the establishment is a continuation of the old one or a new one.

ORDER :- This Writ proceeding by the managing partners of the M/s. Lakshmibai Jagannathadas and Co., praying for the issue of a Writ of Mandamus or other suitable writ inhibiting the 1st respondent, Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, from collecting from the writ petitioners contributions towards the Employees' Provident Fund, involves a certain question of considerable significance and interest, bearing upon the Industrial Law. The matter is not res integra, and there are several decisions available at the Calcutta, Punjab and Kerala High Courts, as well as one reported decision of Srinivasan, J., and two unreported decisions of the same learned Judge. There are also available other decisions of this Court which relate to the Industrial Disputes Act and not to the Employees' Provident Funds Act 19 of 1952, which is the legislation that now concerns us, but which are helpful as enunciating the basic principle involved.

2. Since the very formulation of that principle requires a background of the facts, I shall first set them forth. I may immediately add that they are to be found in some elaboration in the affidavit filed on behalf of the Writ Petitioners, and that they have hardly been controverted in the counter-affidavit of the respondents namely, Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (Respondent 1) and the Collector of Madras (Respondent 2). On the Tiruvottiyur High Road, bearing No. 149, certain buildings are situate on private property, designed for a cinema theatre and known as the Maharani Talkies. The proprietors who are lessors of this building constitute a Hindu joint family of a certain Jagannadhadas Govindas and two other members of the same family; admittedly, the lessors were leasing out to successive lessors not merely the buildings, Maharani Talkies, but also the projector equipment (machinery) furniture and other suitable fittings designed for the exhibition of cinema pictures. But the very important fact running throughout the history of the leases, is that the lessors (Jagannadhadas Govindas and members of his family) were not the persons actually exhibiting films to the public for profit, or maintaining an establishment of personnel in connection therewith.

3. Originally a certain S. Raja Chetty and G.V. Narasimhalu Chetty were the lessees from about the year 1948. That lease terminated, and the proprietors (Lessors) obtained vacant possession of the premises, equipment and machinery and furniture. A certain decision of this Court C. S. No. 472 of 1949 relates to this matter. For some time till March 1953, the theatre appears to have been closed.

4. After April 1953 there was a fresh lease of the theatre, machinery and furniture, by the proprietors (Lessors) to a certain Munirathnam Naidu on a monthly rental of Rs. 2450. The relevant terms and conditions are to be found in the document of lease, and the lease was renewed for a subsequent period. Munirathnam Naidu was conducting the business of exhibition of films at the theatre and paying the rent for lease of the premises and machinery till 1961. It is indisputable that in the meantime Act 19 of 1952 became applicable to this establishment and also that the 'infancy protection' enacted in S.16(b) of that Act enured for some period, after which there was the full liability of the Lessee, the person conducting the business and the head of the establishment, to make the relevant provident fund contributions on behalf of the employees. But the more important fact is that the lease in favour of Munirathnam Naidu expired with effect from 31-3-1962. According to the affidavit, the lessee thereupon ended his business, discharged, all his employees after notice and payment of bonus due, liquidated the business outright and delivered over possession of the leasehold premises and machinery to the owners. The owners took possession of the properties, the Maharani Talkies, buildings and the equipment. After this, there was a fresh lease in favour of Messrs. Laks