APARESH KUMAR SINGH, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioner admittedly a Charitable Public Trust has been brought under the coverage of The Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1952'). It is accordingly aggrieved by the impugned order dated 13.10.2010 (Annexure-6) passed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees' Provident Fund Commission, Ranchi (Respondent No. 4) initiating a proceeding under Section 7A of the Act of 1952 and directing it to pay Provident Fund dues for the periods 1/1995 to 2/2010.

It is also aggrieved by the order passed in appeal by the learned Presiding Officer, Employees' Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal dated 01.07.1998 (Annexure- 4). The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 24.12.1997 (Annexure-3), passed under Section 7A of the Act of 1952 where under it has been held to be covered under the provision of Section 7A of the Act of 1952. It has further sought for quashing of the letter no. 1904 dated 31.03.1994 (Annexure-1) issued by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Bihar, Patna (Respondent No. 5) Where under Dharmasala of the petitioner has been held to be covered under the provision of Act of 1952 on the ground that its establishment has been notified as a 'Society'.

3. The impugned orders at Annexures-3 and 4 have been passed after the matter was remanded by Hon'ble Patna High Court vide Judgment dated 30.03.1995 in CWJC No. 11411 of 1994 for a fresh hearing on the ground that the petitioner has not been accorded due opportunity of hearing. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to question finding of facts recorded in the order dated 24.12.1997 (Annexure-3) passed by respondent no. 4 after remand. By the said order the respondent no. 4 has held that there were 22 employees undisputedly employed in the organisation. It has further held that the petitioner organisation is not providing any facilities free of charge. The facilities provided are in lieu of charges levied which are shown as “donation” instead of “fee”. In the report of Aam Sabha of the said organisation of the year 1995, it has accepted that the visitors are offered food on concessional rates by the organisation through their dining facility. It has held the petitioner to be covered under the Classification of 'Societies, Clubs or Association' notified at Sl. No. 31 of the Notification No. G.S.R. 561, Dated 23.03.1963, effective from 31.05.1963 issued under Section 1(3)(b) of the Act of 1952. In Appeal preferred by the petitioner, however, the Appellate Tribunal has found the petitioner covered under the Classification of 'Hotel' as notified at Sl. No. 14 under Notification No. GSR 704, dated 16.05.1961 made effective from 30.06.1961.

4. Learned Tribunal has derived its own finding based on same evidence. It is observed that Dharmshala is not notified establishment under Section 1(3)(b) but 'Hotel' is covered as item no. 15 as per Schedule. The institutions which are providing boarding and lodging facilities to pilgrims or tourists at a religious place are mostly called Dharamshala. The modern Dharamshalas which are being run by big capitalists through a Trust are providing accommodation in exchange for a decent amount, although against a receipt naming it as 'donation'. They are also providing foods against pre-paid coupons or against cash, may be concessional as they call it. But this activity is quite secular and economic and has nothing to do with religion because the services provided by these Dharamshalas can be and are being provided by commercial establishments. It has referred to a case of Trust administering Tirupati Balaji Temple, who is doing economic activity in relation to its sweet manufacturing establishment. On other grounds relating to the number of employees engaged in the organisation, the learned Tribunal has not differed with the finding of the original authority.

5. In order