RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. The petitioners by this petition impugn the order dated 25th November, 1982 of the respondent no.1 Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (RPFC) holding the petitioners liable for deposit of provident fund of the workers engaged in the canteen and cycle stand at Novelty Cinema, Delhi and also the consequent order dated 19th April, 1983 determining a sum of Rs.89,801.30p to be due and demanding the same from the petitioners. This Court by an interim order stayed the recovery subject to the petitioners furnishing a bank guarantee.

2. The petitioner no.1 M/s Novelty Cinema near Old Delhi Railway Station is stated to be owned and run by a partnership concern of the petitioners no. 2 to 4. Cinematographic films were exhibited in the said cinema and the same was covered under the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. The petitioners had given some space in the premises of said cinema to one Sh. P.C. Mathur for running a canteen and another portion to one Sh. Ram Kishan for running a cycle stand. It is the case of the petitioners that the said canteen and cycle stand otherwise had no connection with the running of the said cinema and the canteen and the cycle stand were open to the general public as well. The petitioners were depositing the contribution towards provident fund of the employees in the said cinema. The RPFC vide notice dated 2nd January, 1979 under Section 7-A of the Act called upon the petitioners to show cause as to why the provident fund contribution in respect of employees employed by the aforesaid Sh. P.C. Mathur and Sh. Ram Kishan in the canteen and cycle stand respectively be also not recovered from the petitioners. The petitioners contended that the canteen and the cycle stand were functioning completely independently and had no connection whatsoever with the running of the cinema and to the best of their knowledge, the workers engaged by the said Sh. P.C. Mathur and Sh. Ram Kishan were for short durations only. The RPFC on such dispute being raised by the petitioners, proceeded to determine the applicability of the Act to the workers in the canteen and cycle stand qua the petitioners. However the said proceedings were adjourned sine die after Section 7-A of the Act was declared ultra vires by this Court. However, subsequently since the Supreme Court stayed the operation of the judgment of this Court declaring Section 7-A ultra vires, the RPFC vide notice dated 18th June, 1982 informed the petitioners that the proceedings aforesaid initiated under Section 7-A of the Act will be taken up on 7th August, 1982. On 7th August, 1982 the counsel for the petitioners appeared before the RPFC and stated that he had been newly engaged and needed to apprise himself of the proceedings conducted till then and sought adjournment. The RPFC however declined the adjournment and reserved orders. Ultimately vide order dated 25th November, 1982 the RPFC relying on Royal Talkies Vs. Employees’ State Insurance Corporation 1978 LAB I.C. 1245 (SC) held that the employees employed in the canteen and cycle stand work in the cinema or in connection with the work of the cinema and also get their wages directly or indirectly from the cinema and further held the employees in the canteen/cycle stand to be employees of the petitioners for the purposes of the Act. Consequently, vide order dated 19th April, 1983 the aforesaid sum of Rs. 89,801.30p was found due and demanded from the petitioners.

3. The senior counsel for the petitioners has informed that Novelty Cinema has since shut down. It is further informed that the same was earlier being run by the petitioners on land licensed by the MCD. It is further informed that Sh. P.C. Mathur and Sh. Ram Kishan running the canteen and the cycle stand respectively were holding independent licenses from MCD and were catering not only to the patrons of the cinema but to others as well. It is further stated that they had their own electricity c