K. Chandru, J.

The Petitioner is the management. They have come forward to challenge the order passed by the Second Respondent Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, dated 23.7.2010 made in A.T.A. No. 764 (13) 2007.

2. By a communication, dated 2.8.2010 from the Registrar, Employees' Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, the Petitioner was given a copy of the order, dated 23.7.2010 passed by the Tribunal. The first Respondent initiated proceedings against the Petitioner management u/s 7A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Act, 1952 for depositing the PF dues. The Petitioner company was already covered under the Act and was making contribution only to 225 eligible employees. Apart from these employees, they have also engaged number of persons as trainees. It is claimed that the Standing Order provides for such employment and they are not eligible for the coverage. But the first Respondent claimed that it is only a camouflage to label them as trainees. They are not trainees, but regular employees. Hence notice was issued.

3. Challenging the demand for coverage, the Petitioner filed an appeal before the second Respondent Tribunal. The Tribunal, by the impugn