Judgment :- 1. Ext. P-3 is an order of the first respondent Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Trivandrum by which he has treated the establishments of the petitioner and respondents 2 and 3 as inter-related composite units, liable to be clubbed together for the purpose of applying the provisions of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, XIX of 1952, (the Act). The case of the petitioner and of respondents 2 and 3 was that they were each employing only less than the number of persons, which will bring them within the coverage envisaged by S.1 (3) of the Act. The first respondent has, for the reasons stated by him, held that the three establishments are inter-related, liable to be clubbed together and therefore, liable to be covered by the Act as one establishment. Ext. P-3 is challenged on various grounds mentioned in the Original Petition. The question to be decided is whether the three establishments are separate and independent or whether they constitute units of the same establishment for purposes of the Act. 2. Counsel for the petitioner contended that there is no adequate alternate remedy available to the petitioner in law to challenge the proceedings Ext. P-3. According to him, S.19A of the Act does not vest the Central Government with jurisdiction to entertain disputes of this nature or to give directions in relation thereto He also states that in any case, the Central Government had no power to stay the operation of the order Ext. P-3 and hence the remedy was not an adequate alternate one, to which he could be relegated. 3. S.19A provides that if any difficulty arises in giving effect to the provisions of the Act and in particular if any doubt arises as to the questions referred to in sub-clauses (i) to (v), the Central Government may by order, make such provision or give such direction as appears to it to be necessary or expedient for the removal of the doubt or difficulty Sub-clause (iii) in particular relates to the doubt with regard to the number of persons employed in an establishment. This clause comprehends within it any case where the doubt raised is as to whether the establishment is one covered under S.1(3) having regard to the number of persons employed therein. This clause comprehends within it any case where the doubt raised is as to whether the establishment is one covered under S.1(3) having regard to the number of persons employed therein. This must necessarily take within its ambit the question whether different units are liable to be clubbed together and treated as one establishment to determine the number of persons employed. S.2A treats all departments and branches as part of the same establishment. The determination question as to the number of persons employed by the petitioner establishment will therefore, necessarily involve a decision as to whether the other two establishments of respondents 2 and 3 are also liable to be clubbed together with the petitioner's for the purpose of S.2A or as to whether there are sufficient number of employees in all the units together justifying coverage under the Act. S.19A(iii) therefore covers the case, and the Central Government is competent to resolve the doubt raised by the petitioner. 4. The Central Government has got plenary powers under S.19A to make provisions or give directions for removing the doubt or difficulty. Such power must necessarily carry with it as incidental or ancillary thereto, the power to issue appropriate directions for stay of operation of the orders under consideration or such other orders as the circumstances of the case may warrant. This is a power which should be deemed inherent in the very nature of the powers vested in the Central Government, with a view to subserve the ultimate provision that may be made or the direction that may be issued. S.19A is couched in wide terms and there is no reason why the power vested should not be available for interlocutory relief as well. The apprehension that the Central Government has no power to grant stay of operation of Ext. P-3 is, in the circumstances, misplaced. 5. The petitioner has thus an adequate alternate remedy under S.19A of the Act in relation to the order Ext. P-3. The questions raised are such as those which could be agitated under the said section. I therefore, decline to entertain this Original Petition, leaving the petitioner open to resort to the remedy under S.19A. The Original Petition is dismissed.