Judgment :- 1. The petitioners claim infancy protection under S. 6 (1)(b) of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’. The respondent, by the impugned order, declined to accept this plea of the petitioners and determined the dues payable by the petitioners under S. 7-A of the Act. The controversy raised by the petitioners could be the subject-matter of scrutiny, adjudication and direction thereupon by the Central Government under S. 19-A of the Act. It is the consistent view of this Court that a decision on this question must be rendered by the Central Government and the Central Government alone. It would suffice the purpose if reference is made to the following pronouncements: 1. Valluvar Handloom Textiles Vadaseri v. Govt. of India 1. 2. Nagaraja textiles, Nagercoil and another v. The Govt. of India and another 2 3. T. Gopal v. The Regional Commissioner for Employees Provident Fund. 1 4. CoimbatoreMachinery Metal Mart v. Union of India and another. 2 2. Mr. A.S. Somayaji, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, initially wanted to contend that the respondent, even while adjudicating the matter under Sec. 7-A of the Act could determine the question of applicability of the Act and placed reliance on a pronouncement of Palaniswami, J. in Chokkan Palani Vilas v. R.P.F. Commissioner, 3 and he wanted to canvass the merits of the cases before this Court in writ jurisdiction. However, subsequently, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that even if the ratio of the other pronouncements of this Court referred to above is to be applied, the adjudication of the controversy by the respondent relating to the applicability of the Act must stand eschewed leaving the matter to be agitated before the Central Government under S. 19-A of the Act. I am able to appreciate and sustain this approach of the learned counsel for the petitioners, for, the determination of the quantum under S. 7-A of the Act will depend upon the applicability of the Act itself to the petitioners. Mr. A.L. Somayaji, learned counsel for the petitioners notified to this Court that his clients shall approach the Central Government under S. 19-A of the Act for resolution of the controversy as to the applicability of the Act to them within a period of four weeks from today. This is recorded. Mr. A.L. Somayaji, learned counsel for the petitioners notified to this Court that his clients shall approach the Central Government under S. 19-A of the Act for resolution of the controversy as to the applicability of the Act to them within a period of four weeks from today. This is recorded. In the said circumstances, the order impugned in these two writ petitions will stand quashed and the petitioners are directed to approach the Central Government under S. 19-A of the Act within a period of four weeks from today to resolve the controversy as to the applicability of the Act to them and the petitioners shall notify the factum of their moving the Central Government under S. 19-A of the Act to the respondent concurrently on their preferring the petitions therefor. If the petitioners do not resort to the process under S. 19-A of the Act within the time preserved therefor as above, the respondent is at liberty to proceed with the ascertainment of the quantum under Sec. 7-A of the Act on the basis that there is no controversy with regard to the applicability of the Act to the petitioners. If, on the other hand, the petitioners do resort to the process under S. 19-A of the Act within the time preserved as above, the respondent shall await the adjudication over the same by the Central Government. 3. These writ petitions are ordered in the above terms No costs.