JUDGMENT:

HARJIT SINGH BEDI, J.

1. These appeals are directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla whereby the order of the Presiding Officer of the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal dated 15th December 1999 has been upheld and the direction issued thereunder to remand the case for the re-determination of the contribution with respect to the liability of the appellant Corporation has been maintained. The facts are as under:

2. The Appellant Corporation (hereinafter called the "Corporation") which is a company registered under the Companies Act, came into existence on 1st April, 1974. Proceedings for the deposit of the provident fund under the provisions of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter called the "Act") were initiated by the issuance of a notice dated 12th December 1988 under section 7-A of the Act for determination of the amounts due from the Corporation. This notice pertained to the period 1982-88. The Corporation, through its Regional Manager, contended, inter-alia, that the provisions of the Act were not applicable to it inasmuch as it was not an industrial establishment in terms of section 2(e) of the Industrial Employment (Standing Order) Act, 1964 nor under section 25(k) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner however in his order dated 14th July 1999 took the view that the Corporation was covered under Section 1(4) of the Act as it had voluntarily submitted to its coverage and had been allotted a provident fund code number as well. The Commissioner then went into the question as to whether the persons employed by the contractor could be said to be the employees of the Corporation and hence entitled to the benefits of the Act and after examining the matter threadbare concluded that the said employees were in fact employees of the Corporation and therefore subject to the provisions of the Act and also drew up an assessment of the amounts due from the Corporation. An appeal was thereafter preferred before the Presiding Officer, Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal wherein similar contentions were raised by the Corporation. The Tribunal in its order of 15th December 1999 held that the Corporation was indeed covered by the provisions of the Act but on the facts of the case opined that as the matter was stale and pertained to the year 1982, it would be appropriate that the matter be remitted to the Commissioner for re-determination of the amount due and for this purpose issued the following guidelines:

"In view of the above discussions, the appeal is fit to be partly allowed and the case to be remanded back for re-determination of the dues with reference to the identifiable employees only. The appellant cannot be pressed to produce such records which under any Statute they are not made liable to maintain or which they are authorized to destroy because of expiry date. The appellants are directed to produce all the records in their possession for the disputed period and explain satisfactorily for those which they cannot produce. Contractors may be summoned if the appellant make a prayer for that and give full details. However, it is the appellants liability to maintain the records and produce them as held by the Honble Supreme Court.

Both the appeals are partly allowed. Coverage of the appellant in respect of contractors employees is held valid. The determination portion of the impugned order is set aside. The case is remanded back for re-determination after giving reasonable opportunity to the appellants to prove their case."

3. The Corporation then filed a Writ Petition in the High Court impugning the order of the Commissioner the Appellate Tribunal but vide order dated 29th November 2000, he High Court upheld the order of the Tribunal and dismissed the Writ Petition. It is in these circumstances that the matter is before us.

4. Mr. M.N. Rao, the learned senior counsel for the appella