JUDGMENT :

P.S. Patankar, J.—The short question involved in this petition is whether the petitioner is covered u/s 16(l)(d) of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereafter referred to as the Act of 1952), so that it can claim immunity from making contribution to employees provident fund for five years. The said Section 16(l)(d) reads as under:

"16. Act not to apply to certain establishments.-(I) This Act shall not apply -

(a).........

(b) .........

(c) .........

(d) to any other establishment newly setup, until the expiry of a period of three years from the date on which such establishment is, or has been, set up."

2. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner by his order dated December 13, 1989 has come to the conclusion that the petitioner is not covered u/s 16(1)(d) and the Act is applicable to the petitioner since January 1, 1981 itself and the claim made by the petitioner that it is not covered till January 1, 1986 cannot be accepted. The said order is challenged here.

3. At the outset we may note the reasoning given by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner in his order. He has considered the fact that the oral evidence was adduced at the time o