1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 5390 OF 2010 (Anuradha Sugar Mills Ltd. vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner & Anr.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DECEMBER 02, 2010. Heard Shri Parchure, learned counsel with Shri Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner and Shri Parihar, learned counsel for respondent No. 1. Service upon Respondent No. 2 is dispensed with. The contention is Employee's Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal has passed impugned order which runs only into two pages. The facts are not considered. The attention is invited to chart given by Respondent No. 1 in the impugned order under Section 7A of the Employee's Provident Fund Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The perusal of chart itself shows that wages paid to trainees are thrice the wages paid to official staff and wages paid to casuals are almost seven times the wages paid to official staff. The said figure itself shows that the industry is being run with Trainees and casuals. The Hon'ble Apex Court has already held that industries cannot be run on the strength of either trainees or casuals. The appellate authority has in para 2 7 applied its mind in this respect and has recorded a finding concurring with the view expressed by Respondent No. 1. There is no jurisdictional error or perversity in the impugned order. At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that the beneficiaries have not been identified. The identification of beneficiaries depends upon the record maintained and produced by the petitioner and the petitioner cannot take advantage thereof to deny the contribution of provident fund on the basis of figures which are mentioned in the chart in the order under Section 7A of the Act. Writ Petition is accordingly rejected. However, there shall be no order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.