JUDGMENT

Mrs. Padmini Jesudurai, J. These petitions coming on for hearing upon perusing the petitions and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. V. Vibhishanan, Advocate for the petitioner in all the petitions and of Mr. A. Chidambaram, Advocate for the Respondents 1 to 7 and 9, in all the petitions, M/s. Aiyer & Dolia, Advocate for the 8th respondent in all the petitions, the Court made the following order:

The Provident Fund Inspector, Madurai IV Division, who had filed 18 complaints, before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Madurai as C. C. Nos. 159 to 164 of 1964, 467 to 472 of 1984 and 775 to 780 of 1984 for offences under Sections 14 (1A), 14-A and 14AAA of the Employee's Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (Act 19 of 1952) and the Employees' Provident Funds Scheme, 1952, and in which, the learned Magistrate ordered postponement of the trial on the around that, the first respondent Textile Mill has been declared by a Notification to be a Relief Undertaking, under See. 3 of the Tamil Nadu Relief Undertakings (Special Provisions) Act, 196' (Tamil Nadl1 Act 21 of 1969) (here­inafter referred to as the Act) and that during the currency of that Notification, the a