The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the infancy period provision under Section 16 of the EPF Act to determine the establishment's coverage under the Act.

SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J.

( 1 ) BY this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the legality of order dated 22nd August, 1997 passed by E. P. F. Appellate Tribunal dismissing the appeal of the petitioner.

( 2 ) BRIEFLY, the facts are that the petitioner's establishment was started on 4th January, 1985. On 22nd October, 1989, two inspectors of Central inspection Squad from the provident fund department visited the petitioner's establishment and inspected records. Inspectors found that the petitioner's establishment was found employing 21 persons from September, 1989. The records showed that while prior to September, 1989, the number of employees varied between 16 and 14 but in September and October, 1989, 21 employees were working in the establishment. After the inspection was done, which was counter signed by the directors of the petitioner's company, the director made a statement as under:"as we are employing 21 workers as on 1st September, 1989 and thereafter till date, we request you to cover us under Provident Fund and code number may be allotted to us at the earliest. We have not furnished/given any information/documents to your department earlier. We have got no objection to the coverage of factory as requested in above. "

( 3 ) A list of 21 employees working in the factory along with their wages was prepared and it was counter signed by the director. After the above inspection, a report was forwarded to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner with the following recommendation:"the establishment has 21 workers as on September, 1989 as per the list of working workers given by the employer. It is therefore coverable provisionally with effect from 1. 9. 1989 (September, 1989) subject to fixation of its date of coverage by the area Provident Fund Commissioner examining attendance/wages registers etc on the basis of records maintained by the establishment. The names of directors and their addresses were also noted down. The directors were all residents of Gaziabad. The date of commencement of production was noted as 4th january, 1985. The establishment was registered as a small scale unit on 12. 8. 1985. "

( 4 ) AFTER inspection, the petitioner's establishment was previously covered under the E. P. F. Act and a provident fund code was issued to it. A letter dated 17th October, 1990 was written to the petitioner by Regional Provident Fund commissioner informing about the coverage of the establishment. The establishment made a representation on 13th April, 1993, alleging that no opportunity of hearing was given to it to show that it had been brought within the coverage of the Act mistakingly. This representation of the management was considered, and vide an order dated 2. 5. 1995 under Section 7-A of the Act, the regional Provident Fund Commissioner held that the establishment was rightly brought under the purview of the Act with effect from 1st September, 1989. Against this order, the petitioner preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by the impugned order. The Tribunal came to conclusion that the record produced seem to have been prepared at one go. He dismissed the appeal holding that in the record the real number of workers have been suppressed and the statutory entries regarding the workers have not been made.

( 5 ) THE petitioner has challenged the order of E. P. F. Appellate Tribunal on the ground that the reliance on the report of Inspection Squad, placed by r. P. F. C and by the Appellate Tribunal was wrong. The Regional Provident Fund commissioner, in his order, observed that the establishment was employing 14 employees generally and it employed 21 employees during September and October, 1989. In view of these observations, the establishment could not have been covered under the provisions of the Act. It is also alleged that the principles of natural justice were not followed by Regional Provident Fund Commissioner who concluded the proceedings under Section 7-A of I. D. Act within three dates only. It is