C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

1. This writ petition, which challenges an order, dated 17th July 2003, passed by the learned Employees' Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the learned Tribunal"), requires this Court to decide whether the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") embraces the Dayal Singh Library Trust Society (Respondent No. 2 herein) in its sweep. The learned Tribunal has answered the issue in the negative. The petitioner is aggrieved thereby, and has invoked Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

2. First, to dispense with the prefatory recital of facts which, in a case such as this, has a necessarily limited role to play. Suffice it to state that, pursuant to issuance of summons, under Section 7-A of the Act, to Respondent No. 2 (which is a Society set up solely for the purpose of running a Public Library), receipt of response thereto, and grant of an opportunity, to the said respondent, of personal hearing, a communication, dated 14th June 1996, was issued, by the petitioner, to Respondent No. 2, covering it, provisionally, under the Act, w.e.f. 1st September 1993, and calling upon it, accordingly, to deposit Provident Fund (hereinafter referred to as "PF") contribution, as per the provisions of the Act. While depositing, in accordance with the said request, an amount of Rs. 1,21,766/- Respondent No. 2 sought to challenge the said communication, dated 14th June 1996, before this Court, by way of CWP No. 2110/1996. Vide order dated 30th July 1998, this Court set aside the said communication, dated 14th June 1996, and remanded the matter to the petitioner, to consider the issue of coverage, of Respondent No. 2, under the Act, de novo. The payment, of Rs. 1,21,766/- made by Respondent No. 2, was also directed to be refunded to it, even while holding that Respondent No. 2 would be bound by the de novo determination to be carried out by the petitioner. In accordance with the order passed by this Court, a fresh notice, dated 7th January 1999, under Section 7-A of the Act, was issued by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (hereinafter referred to as "the RPFC") to Respondent No. 2, culminating in an order, dated 30th June 2000, by the petitioner, again covering Respondent No. 2 under the Act w.e.f. 1st September 1993. An appeal, against the said order, dated 30th June 2000, was preferred, by Respondent No. 2, to the learned Tribunal, under Section 7-I of the Act. The impugned order, dated 17th July 2003, passed by the learned Tribunal, decided the said appeal in favour of Respondent No. 2 and against the petitioner, holding Respondent No. 2 not to be covered by the Act. Respondent No. 2, as already stated hereinabove, is before this Court, aggrieved thereby.

Relevant statutory provisions/Notifications

3. Before adverting to the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal, it would be apposite to refer to some of the applicable and relevant legal provisions.

4. The preamble to the Act states that it is "an Act to provide for the institution of provident funds, pension fund and deposit linked insurance fund for employees in factories and other establishments."

5. Section 1 of the Act deals with its "Short title, extent and application" and sub-section (3) thereof reads as under:

"(3) Subject to the provisions contained in section 16, it applies:-

(a) to every establishment which is a factory engaged in any industry specified in Schedule I and in which twenty or more persons are employed.

(b) to any other establishments employing twenty or more persons or class of such establishments which the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify in this behalf:

Provided that the Central Government may, after giving not less than two months' notice of its intention so to do, by notification in the Official