Judgment :- 1. The petitioner challenges Ext. P5 dated 14-1-1981 which is an order made by the Central Government under S.19-A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (the "Act"), whereby it was found that the petitioner's establishment was covered by the Act. The petitioner contended before the Central Government that the Provident Fund Commissioner had wrongly found that the petitioner had employed 20 persons in his establishment so as to make it an establishment within the meaning of the Act. The first respondent accepting Ext.Rl report of the Provident Fund Inspectors, came to the conclusion that 20 persons were employed under the petitioner in the railway catering restaurant run by him at Shoranur. During the inspection conducted by these officers, they found that 20 persons were employed in the restaurant although a number of them, being casual employees, had not been shown in the register of employees maintained by the petitioner. It was contended before the Central Government on behalf of the Provident Fund Commissioner that the register maintained by the petitioner was not reliable and that the report of the two officers who conducted a physical verification was the only proper evidence on the basis of which a reasonable conclusion could be drawn as regards the status of the petitioner's establishment. 2. Appearing for the petitioner, Sri. Manhu submits that in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the register of employees maintained for the relevant period by the petitioner ought to have been accepted as a proper basis for coming to a conclusion. The register, counsel points out, shows only six employees. There is no reasonable ground for rejecting that register. 3. The Central Government acting under S.19-A came to the conclusion that the petitioner employed 20 employees. The evidence relied upon by the Central. Government was the report of the officers who inspected the petitioner's premises. The contention of the Provident Fund Commissioner that the two officers during the inspection found 20 employees working in the petitioner's establishment was accepted by the Central Government. The Central Government also accepted the contention that the register of employees maintained by the petitioner was incomplete in so far as the casual workers were not shown in it. 4. Sri. Manhu contends that the report prepared by the two officers was made without the knowledge of the petitioner. The Central Government also accepted the contention that the register of employees maintained by the petitioner was incomplete in so far as the casual workers were not shown in it. 4. Sri. Manhu contends that the report prepared by the two officers was made without the knowledge of the petitioner. The petitioner had no notice of the inspection and had no knowledge of the information gathered by the two officers. He had no opportunity to cross-examine the persons who gave evidence against him. Counsel submits that the impugned order made on the basis of such enquiry is unsustainable. 5. An order of the Central Government under S.19-A is by no means a judicial order. Despite the language in which it is couched and the mode in which it is made, Ext. P5 is not a judicial order in the sense in which the judgment of a court or the order of a judicialised Tribunal is. An order under S.19-A is essentially and basically an executive order with a quasi judicial or legislative aspect. The Section says: "19-A: power to remove difficulties. If any difficulty arises in giving effect to the provisions of this Act, and in particular, if any doubt arises as to (i) whether an establishment which is a factory, is engaged in any industry specified in Schedule I; (ii) whether any particular establishment is an establishment falling within the class of establishments to which this Act applies by virtue of a notification under clause (b) or sub-section (3) of S.1; or (iii) the number of persons employed in an establishment; or (iv) the number of years which have elapsed from the date on which an establishment has been set up; or (v) whether the total quantum of benefit to which an employee is entitled has been reduced by the employer, the Central Government may, by orders, make such provision or give such direction, not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, as appear to it to be necessary or expedient for the removal of the doubt or difficulty; and the order of the Central Government, in such cases, shall be final." (emphasis supplied) The Central Government may make provisions or give directions which are necessary or expedient for removal of doubts so long as such "provisions" or directions are consistent with the provisions of the Act. The power to make "provisions" is a power to make orders of a general nature to supplement the Act by filling up the lacunae when difficulties arise. In that respect that is a quasi-legislative power. There is also the power to give directions to clarify doubts as regards the specific questions enumerated under clauses (i) to (v). Determination of those questions are ministerial or administrative responsibilities involving a quasi-judicial process in so far as such specific orders determining the material facts with reference to the applicable law in specific situations affect civil rights of the concerned persons. Whether the Section is seen as quasi-legislative for certain purposes or quasi-judicial for certain other purposes, it basically implies a conferment of executive function upon the Central Government for the clarification of doubts or removal of difficulties which may arise generally or in specific cases in the administration of the Act. Exercise of power under S.19A therefore is not fettered by these concepts and principles which are associated with purely judicial process. 6. In so far as it is not shown that Ext. P5 has been made without a proper application of the mind to the questions in issue or that it is not reasonably based on evidence or that irrelevant materials have been taken into account in coming to a conclusion or relevant materials have been ignored or provisions of law have been misapplied or the principles of natural justice have been violated or the conclusion reached is inconsistent with the only conclusion that is reasonably possible on the basis of the evidence, the order is not liable to be upset in proceedings under Art.226 of the Constitution. I am not satisfied that Ext. P5 is vitiated by any such infirmity. The Original Petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs.