Aradhe, J. -- 1. In this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 25.8.2010 passed by the Employees' Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the "Appellate Tribunal"), by which the appeal preferred by the respondent has been allowed. In order to appreciate the petitioner's challenge to the impugned order, few facts needs mention which are stated infra.

2. Respondent M/s. Ambar Products Ltd. is a partnership firm which is engaged in the business of manufacturing confectionery, i.e., premium sweets and candy. The premises of the respondent were inspected on 14.2.2003 and on the basis of the inspection report, it was found by the authorities under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") that the establishment of the respondent is covered under the provisions of the Act. Thereafter an enquiry under section 7A of the Act was initiated, thereupon the respondent raised an objection with regard to inclusion of names of its three partners in the list of employees. Thereafter the premises were again got inspected on 25.12.2004. On 25.12.2004, 32 employees were found working in the establishment of the respondent, the list of which was prepared by the Enforcement Officer and a copy thereof was provided to the respondent. After affording an opportunity of hearing to the respondent, an order of assessment was passed on 20.9.2005 by which it was held that the establishment of the respondent was covered under the provisions of the Act for a period from 14.2.2003 to 30.11.2004. Being aggrieved, the respondent preferred an appeal which was allowed by the appellate Tribunal vide impugned order dated 25.8.2010. In the aforesaid factual background, the petitioner has approached this Court.

3. None has appeared on behalf of the petitioner. However, from perusal of the writ petition, we find that the order passed by the appellate Tribunal has been assailed on the ground that the same is contrary to the material on record and is illegal. It has been further submitted that the appellate Tribunal grossly erred in holding that less than 20 employees were employed in the establishment of the respondent for the period in question. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the period in question was from 14.2.2003 to 30.11.2004 and while preparing the list, the names of three partners were also included which is not permissible and, therefore, the appellate Tribunal has rightly set aside the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner. It is further submitted that the scope of this Court for interference in exercise of power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is restricted and the order, therefore, does not call for any interference.

4. We have perused the record and have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the respondent. From perusal of the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, it is evident that the Assistant Commissioner has taken into account the strength of the employees as on 25.12.2004 in arriving at the finding that more than 20 employees were employed in the establishment of the respondent. It is pertinent to mention here that the scope of interference under section 7A of the Act was confined with regard to the period from 14.2.2003 to 30.11.2004. It is trite law that the partners of a partnership firm could not be treated as employees. In this connection reference may be made to decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Regional Director, ESIC v. Ramanuj Match Industries, 1985(1) LLJ 69. In the instant case, the appellate Tribunal on the basis of meticulous appreciation of material available on record has found that as on the date of inspection i.e. 14.2.2003, less than 20 employees were employed and the authority had included the names of three partners, which is impermissible in view of the aforesaid enu