Order This revision is directed against the judgment of the first Additional Sessions Judge, Madras in C.A.No.356 of 1980 confirming the conviction imposed upon the revision petitioners by the III Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Madras under section l4 of the Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, hereinafter referred to as the Act read with paragraph 76-B of the Scheme framed thereunder and the sentence of fine of Rs.50/- on each count. 2. The respondent/Provident Fund Inspector, Fifth Division, Madras launched criminal prosecutions against the revision petitioners 1 and 2 in C.C.Nos.561 to 593 of 1978 under sections 14(1)(a) , 14-A and 14(2) of the Act read with paragraph 76-B and (D) of the Scheme framed thereunder, in respect of failure to submit the returns under Forms V, X, XII etc., and failure to pay the contributions payable under the Act for the periods ranging from October, 1974 to 3une, 1978. There were as many as 83 counts of charges. The learned HI Metropolitan Magistrate found both the revision petitioners guilty in all the eighty three counts in 33 cases and sentenced the accused 1 and 2 to pay a fine of Rs.50/- under each count or in default to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three weeks under each count. Aggrieved thereby the accused preferred C.A.No.356 of 1980 before the Court of Session, Madras. The learned I Additional Sessions Judge found that the revision petitioners were not liable for the charges relating to the periods prior to 1.12.1976 and acquitted them in C.C.Nos.569, 577 to 582, 590 and 591 of 1978 and also in respect of the charges prior to 1.12.1976 in C.C.Nos.570 and 583 of 1978. He confirmed the conviction in respect of the charges for the period subsequent to 1.12.1976 in C.C.Nos. 576 and 583 of 1978 and in the other cases. Hence this revision. 3. The only point which is canvassed before me and which arises for consideration is whether the first revision petitioner M/s. Buhari Hotels and Motels Private Limited of which the second revision petitioner is the Managing Director, is a new establishment coming within the purview of the Act and the Scheme framed thereunder. 4. Hence this revision. 3. The only point which is canvassed before me and which arises for consideration is whether the first revision petitioner M/s. Buhari Hotels and Motels Private Limited of which the second revision petitioner is the Managing Director, is a new establishment coming within the purview of the Act and the Scheme framed thereunder. 4. It is contended on behalf of the revision petitioners that the original establishment was M/s. Buhari Sons Pvt. Ltd., that this establishment has been split up and the first revision petitioner/the first accused-M/s. Buhari Hotels and Motels Pvt. Ltd. is a new establishment and it does not come under the mischief of this Act as at no time it had employed 20 or more persons. It is not disputed before me and is also well established that the first revision petitioner is not employing 20 or more persons as is evident from Exhibits D-1 and D-2, registers of wages. But, the plea of the respondent-complainant is that the original establishment M/s. Buhari Sons Pvt. Ltd. was governed by the Act and contributions had been made by the said establishment and the first revision petitioner M/s. Buhari Hotels and Motels Pvt.Ltd. is only a successor-in-interest of the original establishment and as such it is not entitled to claim that it is outside the purview of the Act merely because the number of employees are less than 20. Section 1(v) of the Act is relied on to show that 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 20. It is also urged that any transfer of ownership or change of management of an establishment will not take it out of the ambit of the Act - Vide State of Punjab v. Satpal and another Vide State of Punjab v. Satpal and another (1970) Crl.L.J. 738: (1970) Lab. I.C. 772: A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 655 and Lakshmi Rattan Engineering Works v. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Punjab Lakshmi Rattan Engineering Works v. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Punjab (1966) 12 Fac.L.R. 229. But, the question which arises here is as to what was the original establishment, what is the present establishment and whether they are the same. 5. I.C. 772: A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 655 and Lakshmi Rattan Engineering Works v. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Punjab Lakshmi Rattan Engineering Works v. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Punjab (1966) 12 Fac.L.R. 229. But, the question which arises here is as to what was the original establishment, what is the present establishment and whether they are the same. 5. Admittedly the original establishment to which the provisions of the Act were applied was M/s. Buhari Sons Pvt. Ltd. This establishment was the proprietor of several concerns viz., Aaram Buhari Hotels and Bakery, Central Buhari Hotel, Buhari's Regal Garden Restaurant and Hotel Imperial as is evident from Exhibits P-14 and P-15 letterheads of Buhari Sons Pvt. Ltd. On and from 1.12.1976 the first revision petitioner-M/s. Buhari Hotels and Motels Pvt. Ltd. took over the business of one of the concerns of M/s. Buhari Sons Pvt. Ltd. viz., Buhari Hotel at 246, N.S.C. Bose Road, Madras-1 on lease and licence for this business has been transferred in favour of the first revision petitioner. Exhibit D-5 is the application for transfer of licence sent to the Corporation by the first revision petitioner. This is, therefore, a case where the original establishment viz., M/s. Buhari Sons Pvt. Ltd. has been split up and one of the concerns run by the original establishment has been taken over by the first revision petitioner, M/s. Buhari Hotels and Motels Pvt. Ltd., while the original establishment viz., M/s. Buhari Sons Pvt. Ltd. has continued the business of the other concerns. Such a case of disruption of the original establishment is governed by the principle of the decision of the Division Bench of Kerala High Court in Zainulabdeen v. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Zainulabdeen v. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (1975) Lab. I.C. 412: (1974) K.L.T. 708: (1975) 31 Fac.L.R. 19 and of the decision of this Court in Jogie Gounder v. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Jogie Gounder v. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (1982) 95 L.W. 376 . As pointed out by, the Kerala High Court in Zainulabdeen v. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Zainulabdeen v. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (1975) Lab.I.C. 412: (1974) K.L.T. 708: (1975) 31 Fac.L.R. 19, an establishment need not in all circumstances continue to be the same establishment; a disruption of that establishment is possible on a real and bona fide partition of the estate. The Jogie Gounder v. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Jogie Gounder v. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (1982) 95 L.W. 376 , Nainar Sundaram, J., has observed as follows: “There is no rule that could be spelt out from the provisions of the E.P.F. and M.P. Act that an establishment covered by the Act/Scheme cannot be split up, and that in spite of such split up, the Act/Scheme which was earlier applied to the original establishment will continue to apply to the split-up entities even though each or all of them would notcome within the category of establishments, to attract the provisions of the Act/Scheme. A disruption of the establishment is possible and if the disruption is real and bona fide, then the test that has got to be applied is to find out as to whether the split up establishment will be independently covered by the provisions of the Act/Scheme. If the disruption, by whatever manner it is effected, is a ruse or a camouflage to go out of the ambit of the provisions of the Act/Scheme then it will be legitimately ignored.” In that case before Nainar Sundaram, J., the petitioner was treated as an employer in relation to the establishment M/s. Forestdale Estate and Tea Factory and was covered by the provisions of the Act. On 1.11.1979 the tea factory was closed and was subsequently sold to one Smt. Janaki Sundararajan. The petitioner continued to retain, man and manage the Forestdale Estate a one. The respondent wanted to apply the provisions of the Act to the Forestdale Estate and the petitioner contended that the strength of the employment of the Forestdale Estate was less than 20 and the provisions of the Act were no1 attracted. This stand of the petitioner was not accepted by the respondent/Provicent Fund Commissioner. This Court held that the Forestdale Estate, which alone was retained and managed by the petitioner employed less than 20 persons, was the split-up of the original establishment, and did not, attract the provisions of the Act. The facts of the case before me are in all fours with the decision in Jagie Gounder v. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Jagie Gounder v. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (1982) 95 L.W. 376 . The facts of the case before me are in all fours with the decision in Jagie Gounder v. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Jagie Gounder v. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (1982) 95 L.W. 376 . The original establishment of M/s. Buhari Sons Pvt. Ltd. which controlled several concerns has been disrupted and one of the concerns viz., Aaram Buhari Hotel in N.S.C. Bose Road has been taken over by the first revision petitioner. There is nothing to show that this split-up is a ruse or a camouflage to escape the provisions of the Act. The first revision petitioner has, therefore, to be considered as a new establishment and the provisions of the Act will apply to it only if it employs 20 or more persons. The unreported decision of Mohan, J.,in M/s. Conveyer Equipment Company Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and another (W.P.No.627 27 of 1976) has no application to the facts of this case. There, the petitioner M/s. Conveyer Equipment Company Private Limited took over on lease from M/s. Veekay Engineering Industries the site, the buildings and machinery while M/s. Veekay Engineering Industries retained only the business of rendering services as technical consultants. The entire factory was thus taken on lease by the petitioner M/s. Conveyer Equipment Company Private Limited and it was therefore considered to be not a new establishment. The question of disruption of the original establishment did not arise and was not considered in the said decision. In the case on hand, there has been a clear split-up or disruption of the original establishment viz., M/s. Buhari Sons Private Limited and the first revision petitioner M/s. Buhari Hotels and Motels Private Limited has taken over the management of only one of the many concerns manned by the original establishment M/s. Buhari Sons Private Limited. I therefore hold that the first revision petitioner M/s. Buhari Hotels and Motels Private Limited is a new establishment. 6. Ex.D-2 wage register, and Ex.D-3, employment register of the first revision petitioner, M/s. Buhari Hotels and Motels Private Limited, show that less than 20 persons alone have been employed. D.W.1, who is the accountant of the first revision petitioner has spoken to the fact that not more than 18 persons were employed at any time and there has been no cross-examination on that point. D.W.1, who is the accountant of the first revision petitioner has spoken to the fact that not more than 18 persons were employed at any time and there has been no cross-examination on that point. It follows that the first revision petitioner/the first accused is not an establishment coming within the purview of the Act. 7. In the result, the revision is allowed, the conviction and sentences imposed upon the revision petitioners are set aside and they are acquitted. The fines, if paid, will be refund to the revision petitioners. B.S. ----- Revision allowed.