JUDGMENT :

SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.

1. The Employees’ Provident Funds And Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (Hereinafter referred as “the EPF Act” or “the Act”) provides for the institution of certain funds to be maintained through contributions by employers employing equal to or more than 20 persons in their establishments. The competent authority under the EPF Act declared the appellant’s establishment to be an employer under the Act and held it to be governed by the provisions of the Act. Whether the appellant is governed by the provisions of the EPF Act, and thus liable to meet certain obligations meant for employers under the Act, is the sole question that falls for our consideration.

2. On 01.10.2012, the appellant received a communication whereby his establishment Shri Krishna Automobiles was brought under the purview of the EPF Act. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant preferred a review petition dated 06.11.2012 before the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (Hereinafter referred as “APFC”), Agartala, which came to be dismissed. Thereafter, on 27.02.2013, the appellant filed an application under Section- 7A of the Act before APFC, Agartala for determining whether his establis