P. SHANMUGAM, J.

The writ-petitioner viz., Madathupatti Weavers Co-operative Production and Sales Society Ltd., is the appellant. In the writ petition reported in 1999 (2) LLN 203. the challenge was against the order of the second respondent, dated August 13, 1996, determining the amount due under Section 7-A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred as the Act) and directing the appellant to remit the amounts so determined. The appellant was unsuccessful before the learned single Judge and the appeal is against the said order.

The facts of the case are as follows :

The petitioner society, viz. Madathupatti Weavers Co-operative Production and Sales Society Ltd. is a registered society under the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act. The object of the said society is to uplift the weaver community in and around the Madathupatti area. According to them, they have engaged eight office staff to maintain records and to do the work relating to it. They have 355 members as weavers of which only 238 members are effectively carrying on their work. The society does not own any looms. The society provides yarn to their members and they take them to their homes where they have got their own looms and they weave the cloth by themselves or with the assistance of their family members and supply the finished cloth to the society. It is further averred that there is no master-servant relationship between the members of the appellant society and the weavers and the Act will not apply to the society.

According to the appellant, a show-cause notice was issued for appearing before the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner on June 14, 1994 and to represent their case under Section 7-A of the Act. One Sri Sivaprakasam, Assistant Secretary, appeared before the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner on June 14, 1994 and he is said to have submitted charge statement for 1993-94. On that basis, by proceedings, dated June 14, 1994, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner decided to regularise the coverage under Section 1(4) of the Act and a direction was issued to assess the dues to the enforcement officer. However, it is not clear whether this proceeding has been communicated to the appellant-society. In the year 1996, yet another order, dated August 13, 1996, which is impugned in the writ petition, came to be passed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner wherein he refers to the earlier order and says that the issue involved already examined by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and issued orders on June 14, 1994; that the appellant had not produced any documentary evidence; and that the dues have been assessed on the basis of the Enforcement Officer's report and in exercise of the powers under Section 7-A of the Act, directed the appellant to remit the amount determined. Consequent on the final proceedings initiated, the appellant moved this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution against the impugned order.

The contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner before the learned single Judge were that they did not have sufficient opportunity and that the establishment is not covered under the said Act, were not accepted and the writ petition was dismissed. The appeal is against this order.

Sri P. Sam, learned counsel appearing for the appellant had made a detailed submission on the following points : According to him,

(i) no proper procedure has been followed as required before determining the amounts due under Section 7-A of the Act;

(ii) The authorities did not consider the applicability of the Act and the final determination after giving sufficient opportunity to the appellant.

On merits, he submits that the appellant society will not come under the purview of the Act inasmuch as there is no employer and employee relationship between the members and the society. He referred to number of decisions in support of his submissions.

Ms. Radha Srinivasan, learned counsel appearing on b