HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION No.3034 OF 2009 ORDER: The 1st petitioner herein is a School established by Wordsworth Educational Society. It is claimed that the regular staff engaged by the 1st petitioner school initially was only ‘7’ and thereafter the same was increased to ‘16’ in the year 2002. According to the petitioner, as on today, the student strength is about 240 and the staff engaged is about 15. While so, on the basis of an inspection by the Officers of the Provident Fund Organization held on 22-09-1997, it was alleged that the 1st petitioner school had employed 26 persons and accordingly, the school was brought coverage of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short ‘the Act’). Subsequently, proceedings were commenced under Section 7-A of the Act and the petitioner was called upon to determine its liability. During the enquiry, the petitioner furnished all the records from April 2002 onwards stating that no records were maintained prior to that in proper form since the School was started only as a Kindergarten and got the approval for VII class only from the academic year 2001-02 onwards. However, the 1st respondent had erroneously passed an order dated 30-09-2004 assessing the liability of the petitioner at Rs.17,03,493/- for the period from 22-09-1997 up to March, 2004. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an application for Review under Section 7-B of the Act stating that the assessment order dated 30-09-2004 for the period from 1997 onwards is erroneous since the records are available only from the period from April 2002 onwards. The said Review petition was rejected initially on the ground that it was barred by limitation. Challenging the same, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.8991 of 2006 and this Court by order dated 22-12-2006 disposed of the said writ petition with a direction to the respondents to consider the petitioner’s Review application. In pursuance thereof, the Review petition under section 7-B of the Act was taken up and a Squad of Enforcement Officers was constituted to examine the issue and verify the records and submit a detailed report. Accordingly, the Squad of Enforcement Officers verified the records and submitted a report dated 07-10-2008 furnishing month-wise wages from 9/1997 to 3/2004. In the said report, the Enforcement Officer stated that as per the records produced by the petitioner pertaining to old period, the strength was never 20 and during 1997 9-10 persons were worked on honorarium and part time basis for one month apart from the regular employees and thus the employment strength crossed 20 during 1997. Having considered the said report, the 1st respondent by order dated 04-12-2008 rejected the Review petition and upheld the applicability of the Act to the 1st petitioner’s school with effect from 22-09-1997. So far as the request of the petitioner for re-determination of the dues is concerned, it was held that the said question cannot be considered in the Review petition since the petitioner did not question the correctness or otherwise of the dues determined by the authority under Section 7-A of the Act. Heard learned counsel for both the parties. On a combined reading of Sections 7-A & 7-B of the Act, it is clear that the authority is empowered to review the order passed under Section 7-A both with regard to applicability of the Act as well as determination of amount due from any employer under any provisions of the Act. In the instant case, as per the assessment order dated 30.09.2004 made under Section 7-A of the Act, a sum of Rs.17,03,493/- was determined to be due from the petitioner for the period from 22.9.1997 to 31.3.2004. The said determination was made on the basis of the wages available for the said period in the coverage proposal submitted by the Enforcement Officer holding that the petitioner/employer failed to produce the records contradicting the information furnished by the Enforcement Officer in his report. In the Review petition filed under Section 7-B of the Act, it was contended by the petitioner that the determination dated 30.09.2004 requires review since the school/establishment never engaged 20 employees or more required for the applicability of the Act. It was also pleaded that they made efforts with help of the old governing body members and secured the old wages register for the period upto 3/02 pertaining to old management which made clear that either the old management or the present management never reached the employment strength of 20. The details of employment strength for the period from September, 1997 to March, 2004 were furnished and the registers were produced for verification. The particulars as well as the registers produced by the petitioners were examined by a squad of Enforcement officers and a report dated 7.10.2008 was submitted. Having considered the same, it was held by the authority that the contention of the employer that the establishment never had 20 or more employees was proved wrong. Once such a finding is recorded in the review petition, the determination of dues as per the assessment already made under Section 7-A of the Act stands good since the dispute raised by the petitioner in the review petition with regard to it s liability was only on the ground that the Act had no application at all. In the circumstances, I am unable to hold that the impugned order suffered from any legal infirmity warranting interference by this Court. However, the law is well-settled that even against an order made under Section 7-B of the Act, a remedy of statutory appeal is available under Section 7-I of the Act. In the circumstances, if aggrieved, it is for the petitioner to avail the said remedy. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion with regard to the liability of the petitioner and in case an Appeal is preferred, the Appellate Authority shall consider the matter independently and pass appropriate orders on merits without being influenced by any of the observations made in this order. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed or granting liberty to the petitioner to prefer an Appeal under Section 7-I of the Act within a period of four (4) weeks from today. If any such Appeal is preferred within the above said time, the same shall be entertained and appropriate orders be passed in accordance with law. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be a further direction that the impugned order shall not be given effect to for a period of six (6) weeks from today. No costs. ____________ G. ROHINI, J 6th July, 2009. KTL