Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—Heard Sri Ravi Kant, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Tarun Agarwal for the petitioner and Sri Sachin Upadhyay for the respondents.

2. The petitioner “M/s Preeti Nursing Home” is said to be a registered partnership firm under Section 69 of Indian Partnership Act, 1932 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1932”) having three partners namely Dr. (Mrs.) Preeti Gupta, Sri Amit Gupta and Dr. P.C.Gupta. It was founded in September, 1979. It is carrying on a Nursing Home at 39, C.Y. Chintamani Road, Allahabad. It also claims to have employed in all 10 persons; three permanent and seven casual/temporary workers including Trainees/Apprentices nurses and other staff for running the aforesaid establishment.

3. There is another establishment having some similarity with the name though not exactly the same, namely “M/s Preeti Hospital”, which was founded in 1990. It is also an independent firm and registered with Registrar of Firms, Chits and Societies under Section 69 of Act, 1932 and partnership consists of Sri Anuj Gupta, Amit Gupta, Smt. Sushila Gupta and Dr. (Mrs.) Preeti Gupta. In order words, it may be said that in both the establishments, two partners are same but rest are different. Rest have no interest in common with the aforesaid establishment.

4. It however also cannot be disputed that both the establishments are different entities in the eyes of law for all purposes.

5. It is also said that there is a third institution/establishment namely M/s Preeti Medical Research and Charitable Trust situated at 29-B, Panna Lal Road, Allahabad which is a charitable institution registered under the Indian Trusts Act, 1882 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1882”).

6. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are the officials under the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1952”) and are the “Authorized Officer” under Act, 1952 as defined in Section 2(aa) of Act, 1952. Besides other, they are responsible for ensuring observance and compliance of the aforesaid Act, 1952 by the establishments which are governed by the said Act and are under statutory obligation to comply with the provisions thereof.

7. Alleging that an inspection was made by an Enforcement Officer on 9th May, 1991 and he found 22 employees at the petitioner’s establishment, respondent No. 1 issued a notice on 31st March, 1992 to the petitioner ‘M/s Preeti Nursing Home’ stating that number of employees in its establishment being 22 since 28th February, 1987, it was incumbent upon it to comply with the provisions of Act, 1952. Since the Act, 1952 had become applicable upon the petitioner establishment from the said date, therefore it should pay contribution/dues under Act, 1952 of the aforesaid workers for the period 1st March, 1987 to 31st March, 1992 on or before 25th April, 1992.

8. The notice was replied by petitioner vide Annexure 3 to the writ petition denying the factum of having employed 22 persons at its establishment. It is said that “M/s Preeti Nursing Home” and “M/s Preeti Hospital” both are different entities. The employees working at two places cannot be clubbed for applying and attracting the provisions of Act, 1952. It is said that from the report it appears that the Officer concerned has clubbed employees of all the three establishments namely M/s Preeti Nursing Home, M/s Preeti Hospital and M/s Preeti Medical Research and Charitable Trust, which was wholly illegal. It is also said that M/s Preeti Hospital having been founded in April, 1990, by no stretch of imagination, Act, 1952 can be made applicable upon it since 1987 i.e. before the date of its establishment. Therefore the notice is wholly illegal. Similarly, M/s Preeti Medical Research and Charitable Trust having been founded in 1989, the same flaw apply to it also.

9. The respondent No. 1, it appears, did not pass any order and on the contrary went on to press its demand by issuing another notice dated 24th August, 1992 wherea