Suresh Kait, J. (Oral)

1. Vide the present petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 27.04.2011 passed by the Employees’ Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, in ATA No. 849(4)2007, as well as the order dated 29.06.2007 passed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Regional Office, Delhi (North).

2. The petitioner has averred the ground that the learned Tribunal failed to appreciate that the petitioner Company was not having 20 employees at any point of given time and as such, the petitioner Company was not amenable to the provisions of the Employee’s Provident Funds Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Act’).

3. Mr.Sanjeev Bahl, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner Company submits that the PF Authority as well as the Tribunal erred in not accepting the explanation of the petitioner Company that the two employees, who were taken as employees of the Company, were never been their employees being personal employees of the Managing Director of the petitioner Company. Only their payments were routed through the Company and that too on account of the Managing Director. The said two employees were wo