Anil Kumar, J.

.1. The petitioner has impugned the demand raised by respondent No. 1 against the petitioner relating to contribution towards the provident fund on the ground that the petitioner is not an employer as contemplated under Section 2 of the Employees Provident Fund Act, 1952 and merely being a director of the private limited company, the petitioner has not become liable for the demands raised by

.the respondent No. 1.

2. The brief facts relevant for the adjudication of this petition are that a notice dated 4th May, 1989 bearing No. 549/PF/38/7435 was issued in the name of the petitioner directing the petitioner to appear before the respondent No. 2 and to pay a sum of Rs. 18,012.75/- on account of dues of the firm M/s. National Offset Works.

3. The contention of the petitioner is that M/s. National Offset Works is only a trade name in which the business was carried on by M/s Allahabad Law Journal Company Ltd which is a company incorporated under the Companies Act. According to the petitioner the trading name is owned by the company which is being wholly looked after and the business is exclusively run by Mr. Krishan Mohan Tayal.

4. Petitioner averred that he had