Satyabrata Sinha, J.: Although this appeal was preferred against a judgment and order dated 4.8.94 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court refusing to pass an interim order in view of the direction given by a Division Bench of this Court a Paper Book was prepared and the learned Counsel for both the parties agreed that the entire writ application be heard and disposed of by this Bench and thus we have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and are disposing of the writ application.

2. The petitioner, inter alia, in this application has questioned the orders passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner which are contained in annexures 'E', 'H' & 'N'.

3. The fact of the matter lies in a very narrow compass. The writ petitioner is private limited company. It applied for and was granted exemption in terms of the provision of the Employees' Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) by reason of a Notification dated 5.8.63 with effect from 31.10.52. The said Notification contains a Schedule laying down the terms and conditions for grant of such exemption, Clauses 15 and 16 whereof read thus:-

"'5. Exemption granted