JUDGMENT : - All these revisional applications are taken up together as these are between the same parties and over the questions of fact and law and as such governed by this Single Judgment. 2. The petitioner No 1 is the firm of which the other petitioners are partners. The firm commenced this business in 1949. The case of the petitioners is that till December 1976 the firm die not reach the numeric strength of its employees for coverage of the provisions of Employees' Provident Fund sad Miscellaneous Provisions Act. 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Since December 1976 the petitioner firm came under the coverage of the Act and steps are being taken regularly for complying with the provisions of the Act. depositing the contributions to the appropriate authority Sometimes in 1976 the Opposite Party No. 1 Inspected the office of the petitioner and asked for production of the papers for the ten preceding years for determining whether the firm would come within the spell of the Act. The petitioners' case is that it was submitted before him that prier to December 1976 the number of employees of the firm being less than twenty the petitioner were not liable to make the deposit under the Act. But a notice was served upon the petitioners in November 1976 from the office of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner claiming that the petitioners were liable for deposits. Summons were served upon the petitioners under Section 7A of the Act for determining the amount payable by the petitioners. Although the petitioners made categorical statement and representation that they were not liable to deposit any amount before December 1976 assessment was made against them for the alleged defaulted amount. The petitioner received further notices and finally the Provident Fund Authorities assessed that an amount of Rs. 1,27,294.74 p. was due from the petitioner for the period from March 1969 to November 1976. The Provided Fund Authorities filed proceeding under Public Demands Recovery Act for recovery of the amount. The petitioner received further notices and finally the Provident Fund Authorities assessed that an amount of Rs. 1,27,294.74 p. was due from the petitioner for the period from March 1969 to November 1976. The Provided Fund Authorities filed proceeding under Public Demands Recovery Act for recovery of the amount. But the certificate case was cancelled by the appropriate authority, that is, the Certificate Officer, on 25.2.83, After even dismissal of that cue the Provident Fund Authorities filed ninety three complaint cases against the petitioners before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta as described In Annexure 'C' of the petition with prayer for conviction of the petitioners for non-payment or the amounts alleged to have been due from time to time. The petitioners submit that the act on the part of the Provident Fund Authorities was grossly mala fide. The petitioners were not responsible to the firm for the day to day act as there were Managers for looking into that executive functions. As the certificate proceeding has been dismisses the claims of the Provident Fund Authorities were proved baseless. Institution and continuation or the said proceedings before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate were illegal and for that all of these should be quashed. 3 The Opposite Parties appeared through the learned Advocate and oppose the prayer for the aforesaid relief. 4 The argument of the learned Advocate for the petitioners In a nut shell is that under Section 1(3) of the Act the petitions are not liable to come within the mischief of the Act unless the number of employees engaged in any period was twenty or more and although the Provident Fund Authorities examined all the papers, they did not find anything to show that the petitioners engaged twenty heads of employees or more at any time before December 1976. He further argues that as the certificate cage for realizing the alleged defaulted amount was cancelled; evidently the claim of the Provident Fund Authorities that anything was due from the petitioners for the period under demand was not established and, as such, petitioners could not have any criminal liability for non-deposit of any amount. The petitioners stoutly raised disputes on these points challenging the jurisdiction of the Provident Fund Authorities to recover any amount as deposit of the contribution etc. before December 1976. The petitioners stoutly raised disputes on these points challenging the jurisdiction of the Provident Fund Authorities to recover any amount as deposit of the contribution etc. before December 1976. Under the Act then prevailing over this arena as embodied in Section 19A, the dispute as to the applicability of the Act could be decided only by the Central Government and not by the Provident Fund Commissioner or anybody under him. The Provident Fund Authorities, is absence of the appropriate order of Central Government, had no jurisdiction to consider whether the Act was applicable to the present petitioner end whether they are liable to make deposit taking into consideration objection raised by the petitioners. Thus the acts of the Provident Fund Authorities in filing the complaints before the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta and the proceeding resulting thereon were grossly illegal. The complaint cases having been filed on the ground of non payment of the Contribution for recovery of which the certificate case being cancelled on 23.2.83 and no appeal being preferred against that order the criminal liability of the petitioner was a myth. The learned Advocate for the petitioners relies on the ruling reported in (1) 1981 LIC 1015 . 5. Although the petitioners did not take any such plea, the learned Advocate for the O. P argues that the case cannot fail for delay for seven years. The learned Advocate for the O. P.No 1 further argues that the order passed against the petitioners were not at all ex parte After promulgation of the present provision Section 22 of the Act. Old Section 19A of the Act now substituted, cannot have an, effect in favour of the petitioners. The papers were produced from the Provident Fund Authorities which are with them and as such the O.P. is not in a position to show that at any time during the period of dispute the petitioners engaged twenty employees as claimed by the Provident Fund Authorities. 6. I have considered the arguments diligently. I find that the mischief of this Act cannot be attracted to the petitioners for any period of time unless it is proved that during the period the firm engaged twenty employees or more. Although the papers were under enquiry by the Provident Fund Authorities there was nothing to show that at any period of dispute that is before December 1976 the petitioners engaged twenty employees or more. Although the papers were under enquiry by the Provident Fund Authorities there was nothing to show that at any period of dispute that is before December 1976 the petitioners engaged twenty employees or more. I agree with the learned Advocates for the petitioners that under Section 19A of the Old Act, now substituted, the authority for ascertaining the applicability of the Act was with the Central Government as is provided under Section 19A(iii). The complaints were filed in 1983 and the assessment was made even before that. The Old Section 19A was deleted and the New Sections 20, 21 and 22 were Inserted by the Act 33 of 1988 which came into operation on 1.3.88. This amendment does not have any retrospective effect. So the position as it stood before 1.3.88 was that reigning provision was Section 19A of the Act, now deleted. Clearly the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner or anybody under him had no authority at that time to decide the dispute about the applicability of the Act. Hence In the face of the objection raised by the petitioners the Regional Provident Fund Authorities had no jurisdiction to make the assessment without obtaining the order of the Central Government. The petitioners rightly relies on the ruling reported In 1981 L.I.C. 1015. 7. Further in view of cancellation of certificate case which was filed for recovery of the alleged defaulted amount of Rs. 1.27.294.74 p. for the alleged default in making deposits, and no appeal or revision being preferred there against the claim does not stand. As the civil liability to make the deposit goes unsubstantiated. The cases filed before the learned C.M.M., Calcutta for the default attracting any sort of criminal liability are undoubtedly baseless and do not have any leg to stand upon. 8. Hence the complaints lodging criminal cases against the petitioners as challenged in these revisional applications cannot proceed and are grossly Illegal. Those proceedings must be quashed. The revisional applications as described above are allowed. The proceedings in the complaint cases before the learned C.M.M., Calcutta as described in Annexure 'C' of the petition are hereby quashed. Learned Lower Court be informed. Stay orders in respect of those cases are made absolute.