JUDGMENT

Amit Rawal , J .

Respondent/establishment voluntarily submitted an application under Section 1 sub-section 4 of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter called '1952 Act') for bringing the establishment under the provisions of 1952 Act with effect from December, 2004. Appellant/Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation issued a notice under Section 2A of the 1952 Act to bring the establishment under the coverage of provisions of 1952 Act from December, 2004 onwards which was based upon the report of the inspector. The said order was assailed by the establishment before the Tribunal on various grounds including that the documents which were required to be examined by the establishment as well as the enforcement ofÏcer were found wanting. The Tribunal vide order dated

27^th of February, 2007 set aside the order on the ground that the EOs report was not filed whereby the beneficiaries were identified. The report did not see the light of the day to notice that who were the beneficiaries. The said order was assailed by the organisation before the Single Bench, but the writ petition vide impugned order has been dismissed. In these circumstances, this intra court appeal is before us. 2. Learned counsel representing the appellant submitted that since the order issued under Section 2A bringing the establishment under the coverage of 1952 Act was final, employer was estopped to raise the objections. It is in that background matter was taken up in writ jurisdiction. But, in case this Court finds the said procedure should have been followed, they shall not be averse in taking the steps in accordance with law.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of establishment supported the order of the Tribunal as well as the Single Bench, for, the action of the organisation lacked not only application of mind but documentary evidence.

4. We have heard counsel for the parties and appraised the paper book.

5. The order of the Tribunal reads thus:-

“The present appeal has been filed under Section 7-I of the Employees Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 to challenge the correctness and validity of the impugned order dated 15-10-2001 passed in the proceedings under Section 7 A of the EPF&MP Act, 1952.

2. The case of the appellant is that it voluntarily sought coverage of its factory at Vazhoor under the Act with effect from December 2004. However, the respondent has issued orders without holding any enquiry directing the appellant to remit PF dues for the period 1/2004 to 12/04 after declaring the appellant establishment covered under the Act with effect from January 2004. The appellant has also filed a list of employees supplied to the EO at the time of inspection of the records etc. The respondent except oral submissions has not produce any documentary evidence to substantiate its contention that the appellant had engaged 20 employees at its factory in the month of January 2004. EOs report has also not been filed whereby the beneficiaries are identified. Accordingly, I considered the impugned order has been passed without any basis and without application of mind. The order of the respondent is accordingly set aside. The appeal is allowed. File be consigned to the record room. Copy of the order be sent to both the parties.”

6. To bring the establishment under the coverage of

1952 Act notice is required to be sent under Section 2A. The section reads as under:-

“2A. Establishment to include all departments and branches. For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that where an establishment consists of different departments or has branches, whether situate in the same place or in different places, all such departments or branches shall be treated as parts of the same establishment.”

7. Notice (Ext.P1) reveals that any establishment when brought under the coverage is not prevented from filing objections to prima facie establish applicability of the Act. Report of the Enforcement