(Ravindra V.Ghuge, J.)

1. Heard the learned Advocates for the respective parties. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of the parties.

2. By this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950, the petitioner Pachora Peoples Co..op. Bank Ltd., impugns the order dated 28.9.2010 passed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (Compliance), S.R.O. Nashik (A.P.F.C.) and the order dated 20.5.2011 passed by the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (Respondent herein) in A.T.A. No.727 (9) of 2010.

3. The submissions of Shri A.A.Shelke h/f P.D.Suryawanshi, learned Advocate for the petitioner are summarized as follows:

a. The petitioner is a Co. Operative Bank registered under the provisions of The Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 and the rules framed there under.

b. The petitioner is covered by the Employees? Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952.

c. The business of the petitioner Bank increased every passing day and became a renowned Bank in the Jalgaon District.

d. The Enforcement Officer working under the A.P.F.C. submitted his report dated 5.3.2010 and the A.P.F.C. initiated an inquiry under section 7A with regard to non payment / deposition of Provident Fund subscription in connection with the Pigmy Deposit Collectors.

e. The petitioner challenged the 7A enquiry by filing W.P.No. 8568/2009 before the Bombay High Court, which came to be dismissed as withdrawn on 16.12.2009.

f. The petitioner had contended before the A.P.F.C. that the Pigmy Deposit Collectors were not covered by the definition of ‘employee’ u/s. 2(f) of the E.P.F. Act and that they were not earning wages as basic wages from the petitioner under section 2(b) of the said Act.

g. It was also contended that they are commission agents and not the employees of the petitioner.

h. The A.P.F.C., after concluding the enquiry in accordance with the procedure laid down in Law under section 7A, delivered the impugned order dated 28.9.2010 concluding/assessing the outstanding provident fund dues in respect of the Pigmy Deposit Collectors at an amount of Rs.8,37,745/- .

i. Being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 28.9.2010, the petitioner preferred an appeal A.T.A. 727(9) of 2010 before the respondent at New Delhi.

j. Under orders of the respondent dated 9.12.2010, the petitioner deposited 40% of the assessed amount.

k. All the points / grounds raised and agitated before the A.P.F.C. were canvassed before the respondent Tribunal.

l. By the impugned order dated 20.5.2011, respondent Tribunal upheld the findings of the A.P.F.C. and rejected the appeal of the petitioner.

m. The grounds for challenge and points urged before both the Authorities are set out by the petitioner in this petition.

n. The petitioner, therefore, prays that the petition be allowed.

4. Shri K.B.Chaudhary, learned Advocate for the respondent submitted that the only point raised by the petitioner is that the Pigmy Deposit Collectors are alleged to be agents and not workmen. This issue is no longer res-integra and the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has settled the said issue in the case of Indian Bank’s Association Vs. Workmen of Syndicate Bank and others reported at AIR 2001 SC 946. He, therefore, submitted that the A.P.F.C. and the respondent / Tribunal has rightly followed the said ratio, which has binding effect and continues to hold the field.

5. We have, with the assistance of the learned Advocates, gone through the petition paper book and have also perused the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the Indian Bank Association’s Case (supra).

6. We are bound by the view taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the Indian Bank’s Association case (supra). Paragraph 8, 9, 12, 15, 18 to 20, 27 and 28 can be aptly reproduced for ready reference here in below:

"8. On behalf of the Appellants it has been submitted that the Deposit Collectors could not be treated as workmen since their engagement were purely a matter of co