1. Petitioner, Proprietorship firm is seeking for a Writ of Certiorari to quash the order dated 22.2.2011 passed by Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in ATA No. 712 (6) /2006 vide Annexure-E.

2. Heard Sri. K.R. Anand, learned Counsel appearing for petitioner and Sri Harikrishna S. Holla, learned counsel appearing for respondent. Perused the impugned order, statement of objections filed by respondent as also Annexures appended to the writ petition.

3. Petitioner is carrying on transport business by employing workers and said establishment was not covered under the Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to ‘Act’ for the sake of brevity). On 9.3.2006 squad of Enforcement Officer headed by Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Regional Office, Mangalore, inspected the petitioner Company. At the time of inspection, the Proprietor of the establishment by name Sri K. Jayachandra Hegde was present and he was issued with a spot memo u/s. 13 of the Act directing the employer to produce the records as stated in the spot memo. In response to the same, said Sri. K. Jayachandra Hegde submitted a list of vehicles with registration number relating to Hegde Motors under him and his family members and also a list of 26 employees as on 9.3.2006 employed for Hegde Motor Transport. Thereafter, the said Sri. K. Jayachandra Hegde submitted one more letter on 23.3.2006 stating that employees stated vide letter dated 9.3.2006 were bifurcated and shown against each of the family members consisting of sriyuths: (1) K. Jayachandra Hegde (2) Seetharam Hegde, (3) Ganantha Hegde and (4) Smt. Jayalaxmi Hegde assigning 15 employees, 5 employees, 4 employees and 2 employees respectively are working under these persons and contending that all the family members have independent books of accounts and separate files, separate income tax returns and as such, it was contended that employment strength does not exceed beyond 20 in M/s. Hegde Motors under his partnership and as such, there is no question of said establishment being covered in the EPF & MP Act.

4. Thereafter, summons was issued under the Act directing said Sri K. Jayachandra Hegde to appear before the authority who in response appeared and gave a list of bifurcation of vehicles and employees against each of the persons namely family members consisting of employees, working under his wife and two sons. On the day fixed for hearing , none appeared on behalf of said Sri K. Jayachandra Hegde. Hence, adjudicating authority adjourned the matter to 25.5.2006 and thereafter to 26.6.2006 for which notices were also issued and subsequently in the hearings held on 12.7.2006 and 11.8.2006 it was duly attended by the authorized representative on behalf of Sri K. Jayachandra Hegde. In the interregnum, the Enforcement Officer also filed his report dated 14.7.2006 enumerating the list of vehicles, Registration number, name of the employees working in respect of each vehicle, daily allowance paid, vouchers under which payments have been made and after considering the reply submitted by Sri K. Jayachandra Hegde, documents produced and the report of the Enforcement Officer, the authority was of the view that combined strength of M/s. Hegde Motor Transport is more than 20 persons and as such, it is coverable under the provisions of the Act and accordingly an order u/s. 7A came to be passed on 24/26.10.2006.

5. Aggrieved by the said order, petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No. 712 (6)/2006. During the pendency of the appeal. IA Nos. II/2011 and IA III/2011 came to be filed before the EPF & Appellate Tribunal on 24.1.2011 under Order I Rule 10 Code of Civil Procedure read with Rules 7 and 22 of EPF Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1997 praying to implead the applicants therein i.e., Sriyuths Gananath Hegde and Jayalakshmi J. Hegde to be impleaded as parties to the appellate proceedings enclosing therewit