( 1 ) THIS is plaintiffs Second Appeal directed against the decree dated 28th January 1960 passed by the learned Second Extra Assistant Judge Ahmedabad in Civil Appeal No. 400 of 1958 from the decree in Civil Suit No. 1702 of 1956 by which the learned Second Extra Assistant Judge dismissed the appeal with costs and confirmed the decree passed by the learned Third Joint Civil Judge (Senior Division) Ahmedabad dismissing the suit of plaintiff-appellant with costs. Plaintiff is a limited company registered under the Indian Companies Act. The defendantsrespondents are Union of India State of Gujarat Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Bombay and Provident Funds Inspector Ahmedabad. The main dispute between plaintiff and defendants is about the applicability to plaintiff of the Employees Provident Funds Act 1952 Act No. 19 of 1952 (hereafter called the Act ). In order to understand the dispute between the parties it will be useful to state a few facts. At the relevant time plaintiff was engaged in manufacturing three items viz. (i) shuttles (ii) wire healds and (iii) reeds. Plaintiff started manufacturing shuttles in 1948 in the compound of Navbharat Mills at Ahmedabad. It gave the prescribed notice for starting the factory to the Factory Inspector in connection therewith on 1st October 1948. That factory got burnt in 1949 and in January 1950 plaintiff started manufacturing shuttles in a building situated in the compound of the Ambica Oil Mills in the Gomtipur locality at Ahmedabad. The prescribed notice of occupation of these premises was sent to the Factory Inspector on 10th February 1950. In the latter part of 1950 plaintiff started manufacturing wire healds in separate building situated in the same compound but adjoining the building in which shuttles were manufactured. Regular production for wire healds was started on 4th November 1951 when the prescribed notice of occupation was given to the Factory Inspector. Plaintiff started manufacture of reeds on or about 20th November 1954 again in a separate building but situated in the same compound in which the manufacture of the other two articles viz. shuttles and wire healds was carried on and notice of occupation of this building was also given by plaintiff to the Factory Inspector on the same day. Sometime in 1954 which time however has not been made definite either in the pleadings or in the evidence plaintiff ceased manufacturing wire healds in the aforesaid compound and shifted to a place called Amraivadi the manufacture of wire healds which place is about a mile away from Gomtipur in which formerly plaintiff was carrying on the aforesaid activities. On 15th May 1956 a Provident Fund Inspector appointed under the Act wrote a letter to plaintiff enquiring about the number of workers employed in the manufacturing of the aforeaid three articles and thereupon correspondence ensued between plaintiff and the Provident Fund Department at the end of which that Departments on 28th September 1956 required plaintiff to introduce the Provident Fund Scheme under the Act with effect from 1st September 1954 on the ground that it was in the month of August 1954 that the total number of workers employed by plaintiff in the manufacture of the aforesaid three articles exceeded the number 50. Thereupon plaintiff gave the requisite statutory notice to the persons concerned and filed the suit on 28th October 1956 from which this Second Appeal arises. Plaintiff prayed for a declaration that the Act was not applicable to any one of the three activities with which it was concerned and asked for a permanent injunction restraining respondents from enforcing the provisions of the Act against plaintiff. Two questions arose for determination in the suit. The first question was as to whether the Act did or did not apply to any one of the three activities in which plaintiff was engaged. The second question was whether plaintiff was right in contending that in fact there were three factorie