JUDGMENT :

AMIT B. BORKAR, J.

1. Heard.

2. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are challenging the order dated 29.08.2005 passed by the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi holding pigmy agent would not be employee within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short “the Act of 1952”).

3. Shri H.N. Verma, learned Advocate for the petitioners, submitted that issue involved in the present petition is squarely covered by the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 5154/2016 in the case of Sanmitra Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd. Vs. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, 2019 (6) Mh.L.J. 567. Therefore, he prayed for remanding the proceedings to the Provident Fund Commissioner for holding an enquiry under Section 7(A) of the Act of 1952 in the light of parameters laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of The Pachora Peoples’ Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. The Employee Provident Fund Organization, 2014 (4) Mh.L.J. 436.

4. Shri R.L. Khapre, learned Senior Advocate submitted that the respondent-bank being registered