Judgment: In these three revisional applications the petitioners pray for quashing the proceeding of three cases pending against them in the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 7th Court Calcutta under the Employees Provident Fund and Family pension Fund Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The three prosecutions have been launched on the allegation that the petitioners failed to pay the contributions and the administrative charges in respect of their establishment as required under the Scheme framed under the Act. As a common point of law has been raised in support of these three Rules this judgment will dispose of all the three cases. 2. The point raised is that the establishment of the petitioners is situated at 47, B.T. Road, Calcutta- 50 and the obligation for payment of provident Fund contributions was within the jurisdiction of the Sealdah Court and as such the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta had no jurisdiction to entertain or proceed with the complaints. 3. Admittedly the establishment of the petitioners is situated at 47, B.T.Road, Calcutta and the allegation are non-payment of Provident Fund contributions and administrative charges. Admittedly again three is no allegations of non-submission of Provident Fund Returns, which are required to be submitted in the office of the Provident Fund Commissioner at 24 Park Street, within the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Magistrate. In the context of those admitted facts the only point that falls for determination is whether the Court or the Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta, has jurisdiction to entertain the complaints as contended by the petitioners. The petitioners have also referred to the judgment delivered by one of the learned Judges of this Court in Criminal Revision No. 1616 of 1976 wherein it has been held since the prosecution is not for offence for non-submission of Return for particular month or months, the complaints could not have been filed before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate merely on the ground that the office of Provident Fund Commissioner was within the jurisdiction of the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate.” The learned Judge on such consideration quashed the proceedings as the establishment in that case was beyond the jurisdiction of the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate. I respectfully agree with the said decision and hold that the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate had no jurisdiction to entertain the present three complaints. 4. I respectfully agree with the said decision and hold that the Court of the Metropolitan Magistrate had no jurisdiction to entertain the present three complaints. 4. In the result, the applicants succeed and the Rules are made absolute. The proceedings of case no. C3657/77, C3658/77 and C3659/77 pending against the petitioners in the court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 7th Court, Calcutta, are hereby quashed. I, however, make It clear that nothing will prevent the provident to file fresh complaints, if they are otherwise maintainable in law. Rule mad absolute.