Joseph, J.- The petitioner in these Revision Petitions was convicted in three cases of offences under section 14(2) of the Employees’ Provident Funds Act, 1952, and paragraphs 76(c) and (e) of the Employees’ Provident Funds Scheme and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.25 in each case. The substance of the charge against him was that he failed or refused to submit returns or statements required by the scheme. The three cases were for such failure in respect of three periods, July to September, 1961, October to December, 1961, and January to March, 1962. The case for the prosecution was that the petitioner owned an establishment consisting of Anand Bhavan Hotel, Anand Bhavan Boarding and Lodging and Hotel Brinda, all at Palghat, employing more than 20 persons and that he was bound to sub:nit the returns under the Act. His defence was that the three hotels formed different units and that 20 persons were not employed in any one of these places, that even, if the three be deemed one establishment, the number of employees reached the figure 20 only after Hotel Brinda was opened on 15th January, 1959, that he was not bound to submit such returns for a period of five years from 15th January, 1959 and that this being a case in which a doubt existed about the applicability of the Act, the prosecutions would not lie until the doubt was cleared by an order of the Central Government under section 19-A of the Act. The learned Magistrate held against the petitioner on all these points and convicted him as stated above. The Criminal Revision Petitions have been filed against the judgments in C.C. Nos. 340, 342 and 341 of 1962 respectively. The three points raised are: (i) that the three hotels did not constitute one establishment under the Act, (ii) that even if they did, the number of employees was below 20 till Hotel Brinda was opened on 15th January, 1959 and that the petitioner was not liable to furnish returns for five years from that date, (iii) that a prosecution would not lie until an order of the Central Government was obtained under section 19-A of the Act. We will deal with the third point first. We will deal with the third point first. This is based on section 19-A of the Act, which is extracted below: “19-A. 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) of sub-section (3) of section 1; (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 benefits to which an employee is entitled has been reduced by the employer, the Central Government may, by order, 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.” This point is raised on the strength of the decision of our learned brother, Vaidia-lingam, J., in Dhanalakshmi Weaving Works and others v. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Trivandrum1 where it was held that when a doubt exists regarding any or all of the matters referred to in section 19-A, the provisions of the Act cannot be enforced in the absence of a decision of those points by the Central Government. Though a different view was taken by a Division Bench consisting of Anna Chandy and Govinda Menon, JJ., in a later case, Provident Fund Inspector, Ernakulam v. The Auto Transport Union (P.), Ltd.2, it was urged that the earlier decision was not considered by the Division Bench and that the position had therefore to be examined afresh. We may observe that the earlier decision of Vaidialingam, J., is mainly based on a decision of Rajagopalan, J., in Annamalai Mudaliar & Bros. v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner3, which was overruled by a Bench of the Madras High Court in Messrs. East India Industries (Madras) Private, Ltd. v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Madras,4. After referring to the decision in Annamalai Mudaliar & Bros. v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner3, which was overruled by a Bench of the Madras High Court in Messrs. East India Industries (Madras) Private, Ltd. v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Madras,4. After referring to the decision in Annamalai Mudaliar & Bros. v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner3 it was held: “With respect, we are unable to share the view expressed by the learned Judge in that case. Section 19-A, in our view, gives a right to the parties concerned to refer in case of difficulty for the opinion of the Central Government. For example, the appellant could have applied to the Central Government for a finding as to the total number of workers in his factory during the relevant period The Provident Fund Commissioner too could have applied for it. But where the Provident Fund’ Commissioner did not find any difficulty in the matter of ascertainment of numbers it cannot be said that it was obligatory upon him to refer the matter to the Central Government.” In the case in Provident Fund Inspector, Ernakulam v. The Auto Transport Union (P.) Ltd.3it was held, that “The Magistrate had jurisdiction to proceed with the trial of the case and in fact it was his duty to have determined the question himself to find out whether the accused is guilty or not guilty of the offence charged and he is not bound to stay further proceedings and that he has no right to ask one of the parties to approach the Central Government for a direction in the matter and adjourn the case till that order is obtained. The view taken by the Magistrate is clearly wrong.” This is in consonance with the view taken by the Division Bench of the Madras High Court. We are in full agreement with this view and we dissent from the view taken in Dhanalakshmi Weaving Works and others v. R. P. F. Commissioner1. We may observe that at the end of the arguments Counsel for the petitioner fairly conceded that he would not press this objection. We hold against the petitioner on this point. Points (i) and (ii) remain. The first is that the three hotels did not constitute one establishment under the Act. The evidence of P.W. 1 supports the prosecution. This point appears to have been given up in the lower Court. We hold against the petitioner on this point. Points (i) and (ii) remain. The first is that the three hotels did not constitute one establishment under the Act. The evidence of P.W. 1 supports the prosecution. This point appears to have been given up in the lower Court. The learned Magistrate observes in paragraph 10 of the judgment: Although the defence at the initial stage of the trial was reluctant to admit that the three units mentioned above are of one and the same establishment, after the examination of P.W.1 and after the marking of Exhibit D.1 by the defence during the cross-examination of P.W.1 has admitted unequivocally that Hotel Ananda Bhavan, Andanda Bhavan Boarding and Lodging and Hotel Brinda are of one and the same establishment doing similar business owned and run by the same employer, namely, Sri Ramakrishna Rao.‘‘ Again, in paragraph 13 it is stated: “The learned Counsel for the defence admits that there is an establishment and it consists of three units or branches, namely, Ananda Bhavan Hotel, Ananda Bhavan Boarding and Lodging and Hotel Brinda.” In view of the unequivocal admission by the defence in the Court below, there is no point in the argument that the three hotels do not form one establishment for the purpose of this Act. This point is therefore overruled. The second point is whether the starting point of five years in section 16 (1) (b) starts only when the total number of employees reach 20-in this case when Hotel Brinda was opened on 15th January, 1959. Section 16 (1) (b) reads as follows: “16. (1) This Act shall not apply- * * * * * (b) to any other establishment employing fifty or more persons or twenty or more, but less than fatty persons until the expiry of three years in the case of the former and five years in the case of the latter, from the date on which the establishment is, or has been, set up. Explanation-For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that an establishment shall not be deemed to be newly set up merely by reason of a change in its location.” The argument is based on the assumption that the word establishm;nt in section 16(1) means a factory where more than fifty or more than twenty persons are employed. This is incorrect. This is incorrect. The Act contemplates establishments coming within the scope of the Act as well as those which do not. In our opinion what the section means is that when once the number of employees reaches the figure twenty the Act is attracted to the establishment. The starting point for the period of three or five years is the date on which the establishment was set up with 20 or less persons. It may be that the establishment when it is first set up may have a smaller number of employees, but if at any time within the first five years the number of employees reaches twenty the Act becomes applicable to it subject to the provisions of section 16 that the liabilities of the employer under the Act will start only when five years from the commencement are completed. This view is supported by the decisions In Bharat Board Mills v. R. P. F. Commissioner and others1, and R. L. Sahni & Co. v. Union of India2. It was also argued that Hotel Brinda was later transferred by the petitioner to another and that the number of employees thus fell below twenty. Section 1 (5) of the Act, which provides: “An establishment to which this ‘Act applies shall continue to be governed by this Act notwithstanding that the number of persons employed therein at any time falls below twenty: Provided that where for a continuous period of not less than one year the number of persons employed therein has been less than fifteen, the employer in relation to such establishment may cease to give effect to the provisions of this Act and any Scheme framed thereunder, with;ffect from the beginning of the month following the expiry of the said period of one year, but he shall, within one month of the date of such cessation, intimate, by registered post, the fact thereof to such authority as may be specified by the appropriate Government in this behalf,” is a complete answer to this argument. The petitions fail on all the points raised. We therefore confirm the conviction and sentence in each case and dismiss the Criminal Revision Petitions. M.C.M. ----- Petitions dismissed.