1. These four criminal appeals and the original petition were heard together. It is common ground that if the criminal appeals succeed, the original petition has to be dismissed; and if the criminal appeals fail, the original petition has to be allowed.

2. The Provident Fund Inspector, Ernakulam, is the appellant in the criminal appeals. He was the unsuccessful complainant before the Industrial Tribunal and Special First Class Magistrate, Calicut and

Ernakulam, in calendar case Nos. 30, 31, 32 and 38 of 1963. The accused in the calendar cases and the respondent in the criminal appeals - Bernard Paul Abrao - is the petitioner in the original petition.

3. The sole question for consideration is whether Bernard Paul Abrao comes within the ambit of a notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Labour and Employment, notification No. G.S.R. 346 dated the 7th March 1962. The notification was published in the Gazette of India dated the 17th March 1962 and reads as follows:

"In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (b) of sub-section (3) of S.1 of the Employees' Provident Funds Act, 1952 (19 of 1952), the Central Government hereby applies the said Act, with eff