VENKATARAMIAH, J. ( 1 ) THE above writ petition is filed against the order passed bv the Regional provident Fund Commissioner, Mysore, Bangalore, under S. 7a of the employees Provident Funds Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the act'), on 7-3-1967 calling upon the petitioner to remit a sum of Rs. 2,683-25p. to Account No. 1 and Rs. 80-50 to Account No. II being the provident fund contribution due by the petitioner. ( 2 ) THE facts of the case are briefly these: The petitioner which is a partnership concern carrying on business under the name and style of m/s. Mahinal Singh Shankersing Pawar at Bidar owns three concerns, namely, (1) Commission agency business in cigarette, petrol and kerosene oil: (2) Commission agency business in food-grains and (3) oil mill called Shiv Shankar Oil Mill. The first concern is at Osman Gunj, Bidar, the second concern is at Gandhi Guni, Bidar, and the third concern is situated about a mile away from the other two concerns. In the said three concerns the petitioner was employing 5, 6 and 11 employees respectively. These concerns are situated at different places and it could not be said that anv one of them was situated in the precincts of the other. In view of the statement made by the petitioner that it had emploved more than 20 persons in all the three concerns, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner came to the conclusion that the petitioner was liable to pay provident fund contribution under the Act and the Scheme framed thereunder. ( 3 ) AGGRIEVED by the above decision of the Regional Provident Fund commissioner, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. The respondent's counsel is absent. No counter affidavit is filed. ( 4 ) SRI K. Shivashanker Bhat, learned Counsel for the petitioner, contended that the petitioner was not liable in law to contribute provident fund at all even on the basis of the facts admitted or proved before the regional Provident Fund Commissioner. In order to appreciate his contention, it is necessary to quote the relevant provisions of the Act. S. 1 (3) of the Act reads thus:"sec. 1. (1) * * * * sec. 1. In order to appreciate his contention, it is necessary to quote the relevant provisions of the Act. S. 1 (3) of the Act reads thus:"sec. 1. (1) * * * * sec. 1. (2) * * * * (3) Subject to the provisions contained in S. 16, it applies- (a) to every establishment which is a factory engaged in any industry specified in Schedule I and in which twenty or more persons are employed, and (b) to any other establishment employing twenty or more persons or class of such establishments which the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf: provided that the Central Government may, after giving not less than two months' notice of its intention so to do, by notification in the official Gazette, apply the provisions of this Act to any establishment employing such number of persons less than twenty as may be specified in the notification. "the expression 'industry' is defined in the Act as follows:"2 (i) 'industry' means any industry specified in Shedule I, and includes any other industry added to the Schedule by notification under Section 4. "the expression 'establishment' is not denned in the Act. S. 2a of the Act however, provides that where an establishment consists of different departments or has branches whether situated in the same place or in different places, all such departments or branches shall be treated as parts of the same establishment. ( 5 ) THE employer is required by the Act to make contributions is the Employees' Provident Fund at the prescribed rates provided the Act and the Scheme framed thereunder are applicable. The expression 'employer' is denned in the Act as follows:"'employer' means- (i) in relation to an establishment which is a factory, the owner or occupier of the factory, including the agent of such owner or occupier, the legal representative of a deceased owner or occupier and. where a person has been named as a manager of the factorv under clause (f) of sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 7 of the Factories Act 1948, the person so named; and (ii) in relation to any other establishment, the person who, of the authority which, has the ultimate control over the affairs of the establishment, and where the said affairs are entrusted to a manager, managing director or managing agent, such manager, managing director or managing agent. (1) of Sec. 7 of the Factories Act 1948, the person so named; and (ii) in relation to any other establishment, the person who, of the authority which, has the ultimate control over the affairs of the establishment, and where the said affairs are entrusted to a manager, managing director or managing agent, such manager, managing director or managing agent. "it is significant to notice that in no part of the Act it is stated that provident fund is payable under the Act by an employer who engages in all twenty or more persons in several different establishments owned bv him. As already stated the expression 'establishment' is not defined in the Act. In Webster's New International Dictionary the expression 'establishment' has been defined as the place where one is permanently fixed for residence or business. It also includes anv office or place of business with its fixtures and it may be a manufacturing place also. It is quite possible that the same person may have two or more establishments under his control which are independent of each other, but he may be a common employer in respect of all of them. Even though the expression 'establishment' is not defined in the Act, by S. 2a of the Act the Legislature has declared that when an establishment consists of different departments or branches, whether situated in the same place or different places all such departments or branches shall be treated as parts of the same establishment in the snstant case, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner has not stated in his order that anv of the three concerns is a department or a branch of the other. As already stated in the first place of business the petitioner is dealing in cigarette, petrol and kerosene, in the second place of business, it is dealing in food-grains and in the third place of business it is running an oil mill. The third item of business, namely, Shivashankar Oil Mills appears to be an establishment engaged in the manufacture of edible oil. The other two concerns are trading and commercial establishments dealing in cigarettes, petrol and kerosene and food grains. The three concerns do not appear to be parts or branches or departments of a same establishment. In the order of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, we do not find any discussion or reference to this aspect of the matter. The other two concerns are trading and commercial establishments dealing in cigarettes, petrol and kerosene and food grains. The three concerns do not appear to be parts or branches or departments of a same establishment. In the order of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, we do not find any discussion or reference to this aspect of the matter. He appears to have proceeded on the basis that all the three concerns are owned by the same partnership firm, and, therefore, they have to be treated as a single establishment employing more than twenty workmen for purposes of the Act. In the course of the order of the Regional Provident fund Commissioner, we find referencs to two decisions of the Supreme court in Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Bombay v. Sree Krishna metal Manufacturing Co. , AIR 1962 SC 1536 , and Associated Industries (P) Ltd. v. RPF commr. , AIR 1964 SC 314 . These two cases, according to us, are beside the point. In the first case the Supreme Court was dealing with the case of four works situated in the same compound. The contention of the employer in that case was, the factory in question was a composite factory not exclusively engaged in an industry to which the Act applied and hence the factory did not fall within the scope of S. 1 (3) (a) of the Act. The Supreme Court negatived the said contention on the basis of Ss. 1 (3) (a) and 2 (g) of the act. In the case of Associated Industries (P) Ltd. (2) also the Supreme court was dealing with a composite factory established under a single licence issued under the Factories Act and carrying on at the same premises two independent industries, one of which falling under Schedule I of the Act. They were not cases where the same employer was running independent establishments at different places. On a careful reading of the Act, we are of the opinion that an employer having two or more establishments under his control and employing less than twenty persons in each of them, even though the total number of employees in all the establishments exceeds twenty, he would not be liable to pay any contribution under the Act. That appears to be the true interpretation of the provisions of the Act. That appears to be the true interpretation of the provisions of the Act. If the intendment of the Act was that every employer employing twenty or more employees was liable to pay the provident fund contribution irrespective of the fact whether they are all employed in the same establishment or not. the Act would have stated so and there would have been no need to enact S. 2a also. We, therefore, hold that unless it is possible to hold that all the three concerns of the petitioner form one establishment, it would not be correct to add up the number of employees in all of them to find out whether the Act applies or not. ( 6 ) IN the instant case, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner has not examined the case in the light of what is stated above. He has not also found that the said concerns constitute different departments or branches of the same establishment as provided by S. 2a of the Act. ( 7 ) IN the circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the order passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner under S. 7a of the Act should be set aside and the matter should be remanded to him to dispose of the case afresh in accordance with law. It is ordered accordingly. The petition is accordingly allowed with costs. Advocate's fee rs. 100. --- *** --- .