1• IN ThE HIGH COURT OF KARMTAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 4Th DAY OF .1JNE 1998 vs BEFORE ThE HON’BLE MRJJSTICE G.PATRI BASAVANA 00UD WRIT PETITION MJMBER 23158 OF 1990 flneneflnflflflfleee Between: H/s Nataraj Theatre Railway Station Road Gauribidnur 560 208 by. its partner Sat. G• Sarvamangala —Petitioner (By Sri B• C. Prabbakar, Advocate) And: 1. tkiion of India by its Secretary Ministry of Labour Slits Shakti Bhavan New Delhi 110 001 2. The Employment Officer Employees Provident Fund, Camp, G.uribidanur —Respondents (By 5 ri Harikridsna S. Holia, CGSC for the respondents) This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to declare the Notification dated 30—4—1986 at Annexura—A in No.5.35016/1/86—55 II and to quash the Letter dated 3—9—1990 at Annnxure—8 in No .KN/EO/VSP/1 990. This writ petition coming on f•r hwaring this day, the Court made the following: ORDER tz ORDER The Notification at AnnexureA issued under Section 5 read with Section 7(1) of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Art., 1952 (Act* for short) extending the Act end the Scfteme to Cinema theetre employing five or more wurkers as specified in Section 24 of the Cj Workers nd Cinema Theatres Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act, 1981,is challenged by the prtitioner t4/s Netaraj Theatre in this writ petition under Article 226 of the Consti tution, 2. Validity of the ad Nctifjcatjon is upheld wjth certain modlficataons in THE DISIRICT KXItEBITS ASSO C IAflON, NUZAFF NAGAR v • UNI ON OF INDIA & O’fflER 5, AIR 1991 SC 1381. 3, The matter thus bein covered by a decision of the Supreme Court, the writ petition is disposed of in urms of said decision. 4 bj I1arlkrisha Holla, iParneal CGSC is permitted to file a memo of appeerance for the second respondents I-, IT