Judgment S.K. Keshote, J.-Heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the entire record of the writ petition and the memo of special appeal. In the writ petition, out of which this special appeal arises, challenge was made by the petitioner appellant to the order dated December 5, 1979 of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Rajasthan, Jaipur, the respondent No. 1 (for short, the respondent No. 1, Commissioner) under which it declined to grant the benefit of infancy as provided under Section 16(1)(b) of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short, ‘the Act, 1952’). The writ petition has been dismissed by the learned single Judge under the impugned order, thus this special appeal. 2. Whether a particular establishment is entitled for the infancy benefits as provided under Section 16(1) (b) of the Act, 1952, is purely a question of fact. The respondent No. 1, Commissioner, on the basis of appreciation of material produced on the record, recorded a finding of fact that the factory started at Jaipur by the establishment is not new one. We do not find any perversity in the appreciation of evidence made by the respondent No. 1, Commissioner. There was material on the record to substantiate this conclusion reached on the question of fact by the respondent No. 1, Commissioner. 3. The set up was started of re-rolling mill at Bundi in the name of Shree Bhagwati Re-rolling Mill in July, 1972. There occurred labour strike in January, 1974 and there were power disconnections. On being put by the Court to the learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant whether the outstanding dues of the then Electricity Board of the establishment at Bundi have been cleared by the appellant, he is unable to give any reply. A further question has been put to the learned counsel for the appellant as to what has been done with the rest of the machineries, he has shown his inability to give any reply. 4. It is found as a fact by the respondent No. 1, Commissioner that the part of the machineries in the factory of the establishment at Bundi have been utilised at its factory at Jaipur. This clinches the issue. 5. That apart, it is found that the staff members of the factory at Bundi were continuing in the service. They however, left the services of the establishment gradually. This clinches the issue. 5. That apart, it is found that the staff members of the factory at Bundi were continuing in the service. They however, left the services of the establishment gradually. The factory at Jaipur was started with the old name. The old manufacturing process was continuing. Above that, factory was installed under the same registration certificate granted by the Director, Industries, for setting up of Mill at Bundi. The partnership firm including partners who owned and looked after the affairs of the factory at Bundi, established the factory at Jaipur. Thus, in sum and substance only the place of the factory of the partnership firm was changed from Bundi to Jaipur on September 9, 1977. 6. In these facts on which there is no dispute, the respondent No. 1, Commissioner and the learned single Judge have not committed any error not to extend the benefit to the petitioner- appellant under Section 16(1) (b) of the Act, 1952. 7. In the result, this appeal fails and the same is dismissed. Consequent upon the dismissal of the appeal, the stay application filed therewith does not survive and the same is also dismissed.