Honble JAIN, J.–It is alleged that the petitioner School is a registered institution imparting education to the students by engaging the teachers at Dadabari, Kota. The petitioner school was informed by the respondent vide letter dated 19th May, 1982 (Annex.2), that the Employees Provident Fund and Misc. Provisions Act, 1952, have been made applicable on 16th March, 1982. It is also alleged that till aca-demic session 1982-1983, the school had a branch at Saketpura, having a separate registration with the different managements. The total number of employees in petitioner-school at Dadabari and Saketpura, remained below 19 in number and could not be clubbed. (2). It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Act is not appli-cable but has wrongly been decided vice (Annexure 2) dated 19th May, 1982 with effect from 6th March, 1982. The initiation of proceedings under Section 7-A is bad. The passing of the impugned order (Annexure 11), dated 23rd February, 1996 without considering the representation dated 18th October, 1995, is illegal and is liable to be quashed and set-aside. (3). The respondent has filed reply alongwith the documents (Annexure R1 and R2). It is submitted that after visiting the school on 23rd April, 1982, and getting information, it was found that there were 21 employees, which is also apparent from (Annexure - R1 and R2) thus, the Act has been made applicable rightly and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. (4). I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material including reply, rejoinder on record and also the case law cited at Bar. (5). It is not necessary for me to deal with the case law in details as the law is almost settled. However, each case depends upon its own facts. (6). The main contention of the petitioner is that the Act is not applicable andon the strength of the employees the question has wrongly been decided and further coverage letter is not sufficient without any notice. (7). It is true, that in order to bring the establishment within the perview of the Provident Fund Act, and the Scheme thereof. It is necessary that 20 or more persons should have been employed in the establishment. (7). It is true, that in order to bring the establishment within the perview of the Provident Fund Act, and the Scheme thereof. It is necessary that 20 or more persons should have been employed in the establishment. It is only when the Regional Pro-vident Fund Commissioner, determines by an order that the establishment is covered under the Provident Fund Act and the Scheme, then he must hold further enquiry to determine the amount due from the employer after affording an opportunity of being heard to the employer. (8). In the instant case, on the basis of the material which has come on record,it is revealed that on 23rd April 1982, the Provident Fund Officer, visited the peti- tioners establishment and as per written information supplied by the petitioner- establishment there were 21 employees as on 6th March, 1983. Under these cir- cumstances, the argument that no notice or opportunity has been given, is not tena- ble. The writ petition is not maintainable. A reference can be made to the decisionreported in M/s. Sharma Steel and Iron Works vs. Union of India and Anr. (1) and M/s. Oriental Agencies Jaipur & Ors. vs. RPF-C & Anr. (2). (9). So far as the argument that only on the basis of coverage letter issued to the petitioner, the Act cannot be made applicable, has no substances as stated it is based on the admission of the petitioner-establishment itself and being a findingof fact cannot be interfered, more particularly, the petitioner did not contest the applicability of the Act, which is apparent from the order-sheet dated 24th May, 1995 (Annexure-R8). A reference can be made to the decision rendered in the case of M/s. Raghunand Prasad & Co. vs. UOI & Anr. (3). (10). So far as the determination of due amount is concerned, further opportu-nity is necessary, in this connection, as stated, the Act has been made applicable to the petitioner-establishment, the order of the Regional Provident Fund Officer, dated 26th February, 1992 (Annexure 11) shows that number of opportunities were given to the petitioner-establishment to determine the dues but did not co-operate, so it cannot be said that he was not given any opportunity of hearing. It is not in-cum-bent to give notice of each hearing. It is not in-cum-bent to give notice of each hearing. A reference can also be made on the decision of the case M/s. Jodhpur Upbhokta Whole-Sale Bhandar Ltd. Jodhpur vs. The General Provident Fund Commissioner, Jaipur & Anr. (4). (11). So far as clubbing of two units is concerned, has no substance. The ans- wering respondents are entitled to recover the amount of P.F. contribution whichis statutory due, which also covers in view of S.2-A of the Act and the petitioner cannot take advantage of D.B. decision of Narayani Udhyogs case, in view of the decision of the Apex Court rendered in RPFC vs. Narayani Udhyog (5). (12). In view of the above discussions, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief so as to call for any interference. The writ petition is dismissed. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that some time may be allowed to the petitioner to deposit the due amount in some equal instalment, for that the petitioner is free to approach before the concerned authority, who will be free to pass necessary orders according to law.