P.B. Bajanthri, J.

1. In the instant writ petition the petitioner has questioned the validity of the order dated 30.4.1998 and 23.9.1998 vide Annexure P-3 and P-4 passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Ludhiana and Employees' Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, respectively.

2. Brief facts of the case, the petitioner's company was established in the year 1969. It was a partnership till 5.1.1994. On 6.12.1996, EPF Department officials and Inspectors gave a surprise visit to the petitioner's factory and found that there were 21 employees. The same was recorded and obtained signature and seal on behalf of the Proprietor (Mr. Nitin Guliani s/o petitioner–Proprietor). On 29.7.1997, the petitioner–Company was advised by the respondent–Department, that more than 19 employees are employed in the factory, therefore, the petitioner has to comply the provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'EPF Act'). On 31.7.1997, the petitioner denied that he has employed more than 19 employees and stated that he has engaged only 6 employees. Therefore EPF Act is not applicable to the factory owned by the