Judgment:
T.H.B. Chalapathi, J.
1. The petitioner namely Punjab Tourism Development Corporation incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 on March 26, 1979. By a Notification dated March 27, 1979, the Governor of Punjab wound up the Directorate of Tourism which was a Governmental Department in the State of Punjab and entrusted the work of handling of all the matters relating to the development of tourism in the State of Punjab to the petitioner-Corporation. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') by an order dated December 24, 1982 brought the petitioner-Corporation within the purview of the Act and also held that the benefit of infancy period provided under Section 16(1)(b) of the Act is not available to the petitioner-Corporation and the Corporation has been rightly covered by the provisions of the Act with effect from April 1, 1979.
2. Aggrieved by the said order of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, the petitioner filed this writ petition to quash the same.
3. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the Corporation came into existence from March 26, 1979. It is, therefore, a new Establishment and it is entitled to be given the benefits of infancy period under Section 16(1)(b) of the Act. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Act is not applicable to the petitioner-Corporation under Section 1(3)(b) of the Act.
4. There cannot be any dispute that the petitioner-Corporation is engaged in tourism and the development of tourism and runs the Hotels and Restaurants. Therefore, the establishments under the control of the petitioner-Corporation are covered by the Central Government Notifications in GSR Nos.704 and 706 dated May 16, 1961 under which the Hotels and Restaurants are brought under the provisions of the Act with effect from June 30, 1961. Therefore, it cannot be said that Section 1(3)(b) is not applicable to the petitioner-Corporation.
5. The next point to be considered in this writ petition is whether the petitioner-Corporation is a new Establishment. Prior to the establishment of the Corporation incorporated under the Companies Act, the work of tourism and promotion of tourism in the State of Punjab was being looked after by the Tourism Department of the Government. In 1979 the Punjab Tourism Development Corporation was incorporated and registered on March 26, 1979. The Governor of Punjab wound up the Directorate of Tourism which was Governmental Department at that time and entrusted all the functions and development activities of the tourism in the State of Punjab to the new Corporation. Therefore, it has to be seen whether the petitioner-Corporation is a new Establishment so as to attract the provisions of Section 16(1)(b) of the Act which reads as follows :
' 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 latter, from the date on which the establishment is, or has been, set up.'
It was held by the Division Bench of this Court in Jal Bharat Woollen & Silk Mills v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Punjab and Ors., (1963-II-LLJ-21), that whether particular establishment was new or old for the purposes of Section 16 depends on facts of each case.
6. The Corporation is a public undertaking functioning under the control of the Government though it is separate autonomous entity. But under the Article of Association, it can bee seen that the Government has 99% of shares and the Managing Director is appointed by the Governor and the Board of Director consists of the officers of the Government and such of those persons appointed by the Government through the Board of Directors. Therefore, it is clear that it is a Governmental Company. The functions and development activities in regard to tourism which were earlier resorted and attended to by the Directorate of Tourism have been transferred to the Corporation. Thus, in my view, it is not a new Establishment, but it is continuing the old establishments set up by the Government of Punjab and brought under the management of the Corporation. Therefore, there is continuity of the business and it is only the management of those establishments which have been transferred from Directorate of Tourism to the Corporation. Therefore, the establishment has been in existence and it cannot be called as new establishment. In this view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the provisions of the Act will apply and there is no question of granting exemption from the provisions of the Act for a period of three years from the date when the Corporation came into existence.
7. The writ petition, therefore, fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.