1. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and the Union of India appealed against the decision of our learned brother George Vadakkel, J. quashing Ext. P6 proceedings passed by the first respondent in the Original Petition, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and holding that the respondents are not entitled to proceed as stated in Ext. P6 to prosecute the Bank or to recover the amount as stated therein. The petitioner is a Banking company, the Lord Krishna Bank Limited which had a scheme of selecting trainees with a view to give them training in the business of banking so that they may be equipped for livelihood. The usual period of training is six months subject to extension or curtailment at the discretion of the management. The Provident Fund Commissioner seems to have felt that coverage under the Employees' Provident Fund Act was extended to these trainees also and accordingly Ext. P6 order was passed under Para 26B of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 deciding that the trainees in the petitioner Bank were entitled to become members of the Employees Provident-Fund Scheme. The General Manager of the Bank was directed to enrol the said trainees in the