GOVINDA BHAT, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner in WP. No. 180 of 1968 N. S. Rajendra is the owner of a coffee estate known as Tampa Estate'. The petitioner in WP. No. 212 of 1968 N. S. Narasimhan is the owner of a coffee estate called 'durga estate' and the petitioner in WP. No. 214 of 1968 N. S. Mohan is the owner of a coffee estate called 'annapoorna Estate'. All the three estates are situated in Chettalli village in Coorg District. On 9-8-1967, the Regional provident Fund Commissioner, Bangalore (Respondent) issued separate notices to each of these petitioners bringing to their notice the fact that their estates had been brought under the purview of the Employyees' provident Funds Act, 1952, hereinafter called 'the Act' from 1-10- 1966 as each of the establishments had employed 20 persons including temporary, casual and contract labour during the preceding month and found to be engaged in the coffee plantations. They were further informed of the allotment of a Code Number and were called upon to pay provident Fund contributions from 1-10-1966. N. S. Shambiah, the father of the petitioners sent a common reply contending that each of the said estates employed less than 19 workmen and therefore the Act is not applicable. Respondent by his letter dt. 18-9-1967 replied stating that the estates of the petitioners were rightly brought under the purview of the act and further he stated that 'if the employment strength of the establishment reaches 20 on any day in the year, the estate becomes liable ior coverage provided it satisfies other conditions stipulated under S. 1, (3) (b) of the Act'. Therefore, the petitioners were directed to comply with the provisions of the Provident Fund Scheme immediately to avoid legal proceedings. Thereupon they preferred the above writ petitions seeking relief under Art. 226 of the Constitution. Their contentions are common. The main ground urged is that the Act and the scheme thereunder cannot be applied to an estate or establishment unless 20 or more persons are permanently employed. ( 2 ) UNTIL recently there was a conllict of views on the scope of S. 1 (3) (b) of the Act. This Court and the High Court of Madras had taken the view that employment of 20 persons even for a single day would bring the establishment in question within the purview of the Act. ( 2 ) UNTIL recently there was a conllict of views on the scope of S. 1 (3) (b) of the Act. This Court and the High Court of Madras had taken the view that employment of 20 persons even for a single day would bring the establishment in question within the purview of the Act. Vide G. V. Joshi v. State of Mysore, (1969) 1 Mys. L. J. 528 and East India Industries (Madras) P. Ltd. v. Regional provident Fund Commissioner, AIR 1964 Mad 371 . ( 3 ) THE Andhra Pradesh High Court had taken a contrary view viz. , that the provisions of the Act are inapplicable to establishments which did not employ 20 and more persons to work therein for a period of one year and that 'casual labour' falls outside the scope of S. 1 (3 ). ( 4 ) THIS Court in G. V. Joshi's case had expressly dissented from the view taken by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Nazeena Traders (P) ltd. v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, AIR 1965 AP 200 . The view expressed by the respondent in his letters dt. 9-8-1967 and 18-9-1967 referred to earlier is in acordance with the view of the law stated in the decision oi this Court in Joshi's case (1 ). But subsequent to the decision of this Court, the Supreme Court in the appeal by the provident Fund Commissioner against the decision of the Andhra Pradesh high Court has laid down the scope of S. 1 (3) of the Act. ( 5 ) THE decision of the Madras High Court in East India Industries case (2) has been over-ruled by the Supreme Court. The decision of this Court has not been referred to by the Supreme Court. This Court's view being the same as that of the Madras High Court, G. V. Joshi's easel also should be deemed to have been overruled. The decision of the Supreme court is reported in Provident Fund Inspector, Guntur v. T. S. Hariharan, AIR 1971 SC 1519 . This Court's view being the same as that of the Madras High Court, G. V. Joshi's easel also should be deemed to have been overruled. The decision of the Supreme court is reported in Provident Fund Inspector, Guntur v. T. S. Hariharan, AIR 1971 SC 1519 . Therein it has been observed that the general approach of the andhra Pradesh High Court to the problem raised in the case seems to be broadly speaking correct and so also the finding but the Supreme Court did not agree with the observations of the Andhra Pradesh High Court that s. 1 (3) contemplates the number of persons to work in the establishment continuously for one year. Therefore, the legal position was clarified by the Supreme Court as follows:"that the number of persons to be considered to have been employed by an establishment for the purpose of this Act has to be determined by taking into account the general requirements of the establishment for its regular work which should also have a commercial nexus with its general financial capacity and stability. Considering the language of S. 1 (3) (b) in the light of the foregoing discussion it appears to us that employment of a few persons on account of some emergency or for a very short period necessitated by some abnormal contingency which is not a regular feature of the business of the establishment and which does not reflect its business prosperity or its financial capacity and stability from which it can reasonably be concluded that the establishment can in the normal way bear the burden of contribution towards the provident fund under the act would not be covered by this definition. The word 'employment' must therefore, be consumed as employment in the regular course of business of the establishment; such employment obviously would not include employment of a few persons for a short period on account of some passing necessity or some temporary emergency beyond the control of the company. This must necessarily require determination of the question in each case on its own peculiar facts. The approach pointed out by us must be kept in view when determining the question of employment in a given case. " (underining (italics) is ours ). This must necessarily require determination of the question in each case on its own peculiar facts. The approach pointed out by us must be kept in view when determining the question of employment in a given case. " (underining (italics) is ours ). ( 6 ) IN view of the law as now settled by the Supreme Court, the stand taken by the Respondent that if the employment strength of the establishment reaches 20 on any day in the year, the estate comes within the purview of the Act is clearlv untenable. In order to bring the establishment within the purview of the Act and the Scheme thereof, it is necessary that 20 or more persons should have been employed in the establishment for its regular work which should also have a commercial nexus with its general financial capacity and stability. Such employment would not include employment of a few persons for a short period on account of some emergency or contingency. Therefore, the facts of each case will have to be examined in order to determine whether or not an establishment falls within the purview of the Act and the Scheme thereunder. This has not been done by the Respt. Therefore, we issue a direction to the Respt. to determine the question of the applicability of the Act and the Scheme thereunder to the establishments of each of the petitioners in the light of the law as laid down by the Supreme Court in the above cited decision and until then to forbear from enforcing the provisions of the Act and the Scheme against the petitioners pursuant to the letters dt. 9-8-1967 and 18-9-1967. There will be no orders as to costs. --- *** --- .