Virender Singh, J.

The petitioner, who is Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (for short APFC) on behalf of Central Board of Trustees, Employees Provident Fund Organization has challenged the order dated 26.07.2016 passed by the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for short EPFAT) in ATA No. 1212(8) of 2015, whereby learned EPFAT has allowed the appeal filed by the respondent and set aside the order passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner directing the Respondent to deposit contribution of provident fund of 1223 employees working in the respondent establishment taking them as regular employees of the respondent establishment.

2. Relevant facts giving rise to the present petition; in brief are that to secure compliance of the provisions of the EPF Act, an inspection was carried out in the Respondent establishment on 06.01.2012 and 22.01.2012. It was found that total 2926 employees were working in the Respondent establishment; out of which, as shown by the Respondent, 1753 employees were employed directly, 150 employees were employed through contractor and 1223 were appointed as trainee technicians. It was further found that in fact these 1223 em