Rohit B. Deo, J.

1. This letters patent appeal assails the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 08122003 in Writ Petition 2493/2003 dismissing the writ petition and affirming the order and determination dated 04012000 under Section 7A of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short “the Act”) made by respondent 1.

2. FACTUAL MATRIX:

2.1 The petitioner is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950. The petitioner is an educational institution, which conducts courses of Bachelor of Social Work and Master of Social Work from a rented premises at Desaiganj Wadsa in Gadchiroli District.

2.1 Pursuant to an inspection and enquiry conducted by the Enforcement Officer appointed under Section 13(1) of the Act, the authority under the Act prima facie found the petitioner in default in remittance of provident fund, family pension fund and insurance fund contribution and administrative charges payable in accordance with the provisions of the Act, the Employees’ Provident Funds Scheme, 1951, the Employees’ Family Pension Scheme, 1971 and the Employees’ Deposit Linked Insurance Scheme, 1976. The petitioner having disputed the applicability of the Act, proceedings under Section 7A of the Act were initiated, which culminated into order dated 04-01-2000.

2.3 The petitioner/employer sought a review of the said determination, as is envisaged under Section 7B of the Act. By an order dated 28-11-2002, the application seeking review was summarily rejected by a reasoned order. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was not heard at the stage of rejection of the review application.

2.4 The petitioner/employer raised three contentions before the learned Single Judge. The first contention was that since the petitioner society indisputably employees less than 50 persons who work without the aid of power, the establishment is exempted under Section 16(1) (a) of the Act. The second contention was that the establishment is also exempted in view of the provisions of Section 16(1)(b) of the Act and the third contention was that the application for review could not have been rejected without due notice and hearing.

2.5 Dealing with the first contention that employing less than 50 persons who work without the aid of power qualifies the petitioner society for exemption, the learned Single Judge held that even if electricity or power is used by an educational institution for lighting, cooling or heating, as the case may be, the work of teaching is with the aid of power. The learned Single Judge further held that on a true and faithful interpretation of the exemption provision, only establishments to which there is no power supply are exempted. The second contention was rejected by the learned Single Judge in view of the admitted position that at the relevant time the institution was not under the control of either the Central Government or State Government and the employees were not entitled to the benefits of any contributory fund or old age pension in accordance with any scheme or rule framed by the Central Government or the State Government, governing such benefits. The third contention that the order of rejection of review was in violation of the principles of natural justice, was rejected by the learned Single Judge holding that the requirement of notice would not apply where the application for review is summarily rejected under Section 7B (3) of the Act.

2.6 During the pendency of appeal, the appellant has impleaded respondent-Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai and has brought on record that with effect from 07102006 the State Government has extended grantinaid to the appellant institution. The effort of the appellant is to demonstrate that at least from 07102006 the appellant society is exempted from the provision of the Act in view of Section 16(1)(b) of the Act.

2.7. The contention that the establishment of the pe