JUDGMENT :

1. The short question is which arises for determination in this petition is whether is whether the petitioner working in the Head Office of respondent No. 3 is entitled to claim advantages of the provisions of the Employees Provident Funds and Family Pension Fund Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") after the establishment covered by S. 1(3)(a) of the Act was closed.

2. The facts of the case are not in dispute and before adverting to the question urged at the Bar, it would be desirable to set out the relevant facts. The petitioner joined the service of respondent No. 3 on March 3, 1965, as a stenographer. The respondent No. 3, M/s. Bose Investments (Pvt.) Limited, had only an office where about 10 employees were working and had no other business. On October 4, 1967, respondent No. 3 secured a factory from Alfa Rubber Company under an agreement of leave and licence. Rubber products were manufactured in the said company and 24 persons were employed in the said factory. On December 29, 1967, on the visit of the provident Fund Inspector, it was noticed that respondent No. 3 had an establishment which is a factory engaged in an industry specified in schedule I of th