1. The present appeal is directed against the order dated 25th July, 2000 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) No. 3998/2000 dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant and upholding the order dated 31st March, 2000 passed by the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal that the establishment of the appellant was covered under the provisions of the Employees Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the act, for short).

.2. The appellant is a public limited company running an amusement park on Delhi-Gurgaon road. The Provident Fund Commissioner initiated proceedings against the appellant under Section 7A of the Act after receiving a report from Enforcement Officer, who had visited the establishment in 1995. The Enforcement Officer in his report has pointed out that establishment had exceeded 19 employees from April, 1995 and was classified under the Scheduled Head “theater bearing other form of entertainment”. On the basis of the said report, the Regional Office of the Provident Fund Commissioner issued notice and asked the appellant to produce records which it is claimed, were not submitted but an intimation was sent by the appellant asking the respondent to inspect the records in the office of the appellant. The appellant also objected to and claimed that it is not covered under the Act.

3. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, however, rejected these contentions and vide order dated 12th October, 1999 declared that the establishment of the appellant was covered under the Act and Head "companies, societies, associations, clubs or troupes which give any exhibition of acrobatic in any arena circular or otherwise or perform or permit any other form of entertainment in any place, other than a theater, and require payment for admission into such exhibition or entertainment as spectators or audience".

.4. Being aggrieved, the appellant filed an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. The said appeal was disposed of vide order dated 31st March, 2000. We have perused the said order passed by the Appellate Authority. In paragraph 6 of the said order, learned Tribunal noticed in brief the issues and questions that arose for consideration in the following manner:

.In the present case the only controversy is whether the activity of the appellants establishment falls under any schedule head of notified establishments or not and whether appellants establishment is giving entry to any spectator after charging admission fees for providing entertaining. The appellant has insisted that controversy is whether the establishment of the appellant falls under the schedule head of the establishment as held by the 7A authority or not.

5. In paragraph 7 of the said order, learned Tribunal recorded that several High Courts have held that the Act applies on its own force and no notice or declaration is required for its application and it is for the establishment to show that it does not fall within the provisions of the Act or under any scheduled heads of establishment or industries. In paragraph 8, learned Tribunal further recorded that Section 1(3)(a) of the Act applies to factories only and, thereforee, is not applicable in the case of the appellant. Thereafter, the learned Tribunal proceeded to examine Section 1(3)(b) of the Act, which reads as under:

Any other establishment employing 20 or more persons or class of such establishments which the Central Govt. may by notification in the Official Gazette specify in this behalf.

6. Learned Tribunal interpreted Section 1(3)(b) and held that it will apply to any establishment, which employs 20 or more persons and it is not mandatory that the said establishment should be one covered by any specific notification issued by the Central Government in the Official Gazette. He held that notification by the Central Government is required only in cases where establishment employs less than 20 persons. Thus, where establishment employs 20 or more p