( 1 ) I agree with my brother Dwivedi that the reference should be rejected. The essential fact to notice is that each applicant has been convicted as an employer under Para 76 of a Scheme framed by the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred upon, them by Section 5 of the Employees Provident Funds Act. It is not in dispute that the acts for which the applicants have been convicted have been done by them and are in breach of the provisions of the Scheme and are made punishable by Para 76 of it read With Schedule II, Item No. 14, and Section 14 (2)of the Act. I am emphasising the fact that the applicants have been convicted under the scheme and not under the Act because whether the Scheme was in force on the date on which the acts were done haa not been considered either in the case of Golden Silk Mills v. Central Provident fund Commissioner, AIR 1958 Punj 386 or in the case of State v. Jagraj, 1961 All LJ 141 : (AIR 1961 All 556 ). When the applicants are not convicted under any provision of the Act, when the acts done by them do not amount to an offence under the Act, it seems to me irrelevant to consider whether it was, or was not in force, when the a