The main legal point established is the significance of evidence and admissions in determining the employer-employee relationship, particularly in the context of directors' status as employees under the EPF Act.

Mukta Gupta, J.

1. An inspection was carried out by the officers of Employers Provident Fund Organization (in short the organization) of the premises of the appellant M/s. Saheli Marbles Pvt. Ltd. (in short the Saheli Marbles) on September 11, 1996 wherein a list was prepared noting down the names of the employees for the month of June and 21 names were recorded. The said names included Nana Lal, Jai Gopal and Harish Chandra and the list was signed by the officers of the organization besides Nana Lal Chhaparwal. Relevant would it be to highlight that the list indicated that it contained the names of the employees of the appellant and Nana Lal Chhaparwal who is a director of the appellant signed the list. The said survey was proceeded by a letter dated November 07, 1996 asking M/s. Saheli Marbles to comply with the provisions of the Employees Provident Fund Act (in short the EPF Act). M/s. Saheli Marbles sent a representation dated January 01, 2004 to the Organization stating that as per the wage register and books of account only 12 members in the list were regular employees in the company and the other 9 were either employees of the company or their family members not related to the company. It was also pointed out that out of the 9 members 3 members were the Directors of the company namely Shri Nana Lal Chhaparwal, Shri Jai Gopal Chhaparwal and Shri Harish Chhaparwal and have been the Directors of the company since its incorporation. Further representation was made by M/s. Saheli Marbles on December 11, 2003 giving the status of 8 persons included in the list. In the enquiry under Section 7-A before the Commissioner despite repeated adjournments from time to time for 32 occasions none appeared on behalf of M/s. Saheli Marbles and thus vide order dated November 24, 2009 in view of the number of workers employed in the establishment being 20 and above, it was directed that M/s. Saheli Marbles fell within the ambit of the provisions of EPF Act.

2. Aggrieved by the order dated November 24, 2009 passed by the Commissioner, an appeal was preferred before the Appellate Tribunal by M/s. Saheli Marbles which was dismissed vide order dated October 04, 2010. The Appellate Tribunal relying upon the decision in ESIC v. Apex Engineering Pvt. Ltd. 1998 SC LLJ 274 wherein it was held that “remuneration paid to Directors for rendering services is wage and Directors be considered as employees” held that even Directors were employees of M/s. Saheli Marbles and thus employee strength was 20 and above, hence there was no infirmity in the order of the Commissioner.

3. M/s. Saheli Marbles thereafter preferred a writ petition before this Court being W.P. (C) No. 8473/2010 which was dismissed vide the impugned order dated October 09, 2013. The learned Single Judge held that the finding of fact by the original authority confirmed by the appellate authority could not be gone into by the Court in exercise of its power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution and since the list prepared by the Enforcement Squad was in presence of one of the Directors of M/s. Saheli Marbles duly signed by him, the facts cannot be disputed.

4. A perusal of the record would reveal that the list as prepared on the spot in the inspection dated September 11, 1996 was duly signed by Shri Nana Lal Chhaparwal, one of the Directors of the company. The heading of the document is list of employees for the month of June. Names of Nana Lal, Jai Gopal and Harish Chandra are mentioned as employees. The list is duly signed by Nana Lal Chhaparwal with no protest. Even in the subsequent representations the facts stated in the list are not denied and it is stated that the three persons named above were Directors of the company and hence not employees.

5. Thus the short issue before this Court is whether the Directors of M/s. Saheli Marbles were employees or not in terms of the provisions of EPF Act. Learned counsel for M/s. Saheli Marbles relies upon the decision repo