Judgment :- 1. The petitioner is a firm carrying on business at Calicut under the style "Ernakulam Radio Company, (Calicut)", which is hereinafter referred to as the Calicut Firm. This was constituted by a deed of partnership, Ext. P-2 dated 16th December, 1968; and it came into effect on 111969. It has two partners by name P. Muralidharan and P. Gopakumar. The latter is the son of one M. Sankara Menon. This firm has admitted four minors to its benefits. Two of them are the children of the said Sankara Menon, while the other two are the children of one K. P. Shenoy. The partnership deed provides that the two partners shall each be entitled to 20 paise in the rupee and the minors shall each be entitled to 15 paise in the rupee in the profits of the firm. 2. There is another firm under the style "Ernakulam Radio Company" which is hereinafter referred to as the Ernakulam Firm. This was formed in 1958. It has its head office at Ernakulam and branch offices at Trichur and Calicut. At the time of creation of the Calicut Firm, the partners of the Ernakulam Firm were the aforesaid Sankara Menon, Shenoy and Gopakumar. The Ernakulam Firm had also four minors admitted to its benefits. It was the very same minors who were admitted to the benefits of the Calicut Firm. Admittedly both firms are carrying on the same business, namely dealing in radios, wireless sets, electricals, electronics and other allied goods. The Calicut firm started business in the same premises where the Ernakulam Firm was carrying on business; and there is no dispute that the whole stock in trade and equipments of the Ernakulam Firm at Calicut were taken over by the Calicut Firm, and that it was that stock and equipments which formed the trade assets of the Calicut Firm. 3. The Ernakulam Firm had come under the purview of the Employees Provident Funds Act, 1952 and the scheme thereunder with effect from 30-6-1965, with the result it was paying the contributions under the scheme in respect of its employees at the Calicut Branch also from the above date. The payment was stopped with effect from 111969, as its Calicut branch was stopped and taken over by the Calicut Firm. The payment was stopped with effect from 111969, as its Calicut branch was stopped and taken over by the Calicut Firm. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Trivandrum, the respondent herein, treated the Calicut Firm as carrying on the same business of the Ernakulam Firm under a different name, and called upon the Calicut Firm, by a notice Ext. P-3 dated 6-4-1970, to submit returns under the Act in respect of its employees. The petitioner objected to the notice by its letter, Ext. P-4 dated 17 41970, stating that the Calicut Firm was wholly a new business establishment and that the Act and scheme did not apply to it. The respondent did not accept the above objection, and he again called upon the petitioner, by his notice Ext. P-5 dated 2-9-197010 comply with the provisions of the Act and the scheme. Thereupon the petitioner filed this writ petition to quash Exts. P-3 and P-5 and to restrain the respondent from taking any action against the petitioner pursuant to the said notices. 4. The facts of the case are not seriously in dispute. There can be no doubt that the Calicut Firm and the Ernakulam Firm are different legal entities, though the majority of the beneficiaries of these two firms are the same. It is also clear that the Ernakulam Firm closed down its Calicut business on 3112 1968, and that the business which the Calicut Firm commenced with effect from 111969 was one if its own. At the same time, it is obvious that the business that the Calicut Firm started on 111969 was the one which the Ernakulam Firm was carrying on up to that date. Some attempts have been made by the interested persons to show that the business that the Calicut Firm started was a new one. These attempts cannot succeed in the light of the admitted facts. As already stated, the Calicut Firm took over or purchased from the Ernakulam Firm the whole stock in trade together with all equipments available at the Calicut branch of the Ernakulam Firm. The Calicut Firm continued the same business in the same premises as the successor-in-interest of the Ernakulam Firm in so far as its Calicut branch was concerned. As already stated, the Calicut Firm took over or purchased from the Ernakulam Firm the whole stock in trade together with all equipments available at the Calicut branch of the Ernakulam Firm. The Calicut Firm continued the same business in the same premises as the successor-in-interest of the Ernakulam Firm in so far as its Calicut branch was concerned. Even the security deposits for the rental of the business premises, the telephone and the electric connection were transferred by the Ernakulam Firm to the Calicut Firm, which is a clear indicator of the continuity of the establishment. The Ernakulam firm had four employees at Calicut immediately before that business was taken over by the Calicut Firm. The Ernakulam Firm obtained resignations from all of them; and they were employed again on the next day by the Calicut Firm from the date of commencement of its business. This device cannot affect the question whether the business which the Calicut Firm started with effect from 111969 was a continuation of the business of the Ernakulam Firm at its Calicut branch, though it may affect the rights of those workmen as against their employers. It is, therefore, clear on the facts of the case that the business which the Calicut Firm commenced was the one which the Ernakulam Firm was carrying on at Calicut. One was a continuation of the other; and the establishment or the business remained the same with a change of ownership. 5. It is well-established by the decision of the Supreme Court in Lakshmi Ratan Engineering Works v. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Punjab (1966 I L.L.J. 741) that a change in the ownership or location of an establishment does not affect the applicability of the Act to that establishment. This decision was followed by the Supreme Court in The State of Punjab v. Satpal (1970 II L.L.J. 64), wherein the Court stated: "The law takes into account only the existence of establishments and the employment of a certain number of persons in factories over a given period. It is for this purpose that change of location or change of composition of partners or even a change in the manufacturing process is not considered vital in the application of this law". It is clear from S.1(3) of the Act that it applies to an establishment; and its owner incurs the liability under the Act. It is for this purpose that change of location or change of composition of partners or even a change in the manufacturing process is not considered vital in the application of this law". It is clear from S.1(3) of the Act that it applies to an establishment; and its owner incurs the liability under the Act. It is not concerned who the owner is. 6. It was contended on behalf of the petitioner that, even assuming that the business of the petitioner is a continuation of the business of Ernakulam Firm with a change of ownership, the petitioner's business would not fall within the purview of the Employees Provident Funds Act and the Scheme thereunder. The matter is governed by S.1(5) of the Act, which reads: "An establishment to which this Act applies shall continue to be governed by this Act notwithstanding that the number of persons employed therein at any time falls below twenty: Provided that where for a continuous period of not less than one year the number of persons employed therein has been less than fifteen, the employer in relation to such establishment may cease to give effect to the provision of this Act and any scheme framed thereunder, with effect from the beginning of the month following the expiry of the said period of one year, but he shall within one month of the date of such cessation, intimate, by registered post, the fact thereof to such authority as may be specified by the appropriate Government in this behalf." The Calicut branch of the Ernakulam Firm was admittedly covered by the Act by virtue of S.2A of the Act, which provides "that when an establishment consists of different departments or has branches, whether situate in the same place or different places, all such departments or branches shall be treated as parts of the establishment". After the sale or transfer of the business of the Calicut branch to the petitioner, that branch cannot any more be treated as part of the establishment of the Ernakulam Firm. All the same, the Calicut branch or establishment would continue to be covered by the Act by virtue of S.1(5) of the Act quoted above. After the sale or transfer of the business of the Calicut branch to the petitioner, that branch cannot any more be treated as part of the establishment of the Ernakulam Firm. All the same, the Calicut branch or establishment would continue to be covered by the Act by virtue of S.1(5) of the Act quoted above. The fall in the number of the employees below the prescribed limit would not affect the liability of the employer, unless and until he absolves himself therefrom in the manner stated in the proviso to the above section. The petitioner has no case that it has got itself absolved from that liability in the said fashion. Therefore, it is governed by the Act, and is liable to comply with the impugned notices issued to it by the respondent. 7. Counsel for the petitioner also contended that this is a case where an establishment to which the Act applied disposed of a part of that establishment, that the effect of that disposal was to break the integrity of the said establishment, and that the Act would not apply to that part of the establishment, unless it has got the minimum number of employees necessary for the application of the Act. Reliance was placed in support of the above contention on a Division Bench decision of this Court in Mohammed Kutti v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (1968 II LLJ. 466). That was a case where a rubber estate to which the Act applied was partitioned into three parts among its co-owners. One of the parts had only less than 20 employees; and its owner contended that the Act did not apply to that part, in spite of the provision contained in S.1 (5) of the Act. The contention was accepted; and in doing so the Court said: "What we are concerned with in this case, if the petitioner's contention is correct, is not an establishment the integrity of which has not been broken; but an establishment which has been split into three separate establishments by a process of partition. This means that the original establishment has ceased to exist, and that sub-s. (5) of S.1 does not apply. This means that the original establishment has ceased to exist, and that sub-s. (5) of S.1 does not apply. The applicability of the Act in such a case depends not on the number of persons employed by the original establishment, but on the number of persons employed by each of the establishments formed by the partition of the original establishment." With the greatest respect, I am inclined to think that the above proposition cannot be sustained in the light of the decisions of the Supreme Court referred to above and the clear provisions contained in Sub-s. (5) of S.1 and S.2A of the Act. For the purpose of this case, it is sufficient for me to say that the above decision has no application. The Act applied to the establishment of the Ernakulam Firm, which had three offices, one at Ernakulam, the second at Trichur and the third at Calicut. By virtue of S.2A, all these branches were treated as part of the same establishment; and the Act applied to each of the three branches. The disposal or sale of the Calicut branch in favour of the petitioner does not break the integrity of that establishment. The Calicut branch to which the Act applied continued with a change of ownership; and by virtue of S.1(5), the Act would continue to apply to that branch unaffected by the change of ownership. 8. In the result, I dismiss this petition. The parties will bear their own costs.