P. S. Sahay, J.

1. All these thirty three applications have been heard together and will be governed by this common judgment.

2. The petitioners have moved this Court for quashing the cognizance taken against them on 21.9.1976/23.9.1976 under section 14 of the Employees provident Fund and Family Pension Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the act ). Petitioner No.1 is a Press and petitioner No.2 is said to be the Director of the said Press. On 24.4.1970 there was inspection by the Provident Fund inspector and the petitioners were noticed to show cause as to why the provisions of the Act would not apply to the establishment of the petitioners, a copy of the notice of the Provident Fund Inspector has been filed along with this application and marked as Annexure-1. On 24.5.1971 a representation under section 19-A of the Act was filed by the petitioners stating, inter alia, that the provisions of the Act were not applicable to them and they further claimed exemption under section 16 (!) of the said Act. A copy of the representation has been filed and remarked as Annexure 2 to this application. On 14.9.1976/21.9.1976 a petitioner of complaint was filed by the Provident fund In