IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.1056 of 2011 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 4760 of 2010 ====================================================== M/S Madhu Gas Enterprises, Tilkamanjhi Chowk, Bhagalur, District- Bhagalpur, through its Proprietor Mr. Dinesh Prasad Singh, S/o Late Janannath Singh, R/o Mohalla-Bank Colony, Hatiya Road, P.S.- Tilkamanjhi, Bhagalpur. .... .... Petitioner/Appellant Versus 1. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Bihar, R-Block Patna. 2. The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Bhagalpur, Adampur Chowk, Bhagalpur. 3. The Presiding Officer, Employee Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi. .... .... Respondents/Respondents. ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Chakradhari Sharan Singh, Advocate. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Prashant Sinha Mr. Shailendra Kumar Sinha, Advocates. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 5 25-08-2011 Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 11th April 2011 passed by the learned single Judge in above CWJC No. 4760 of 2010, the writ petitioner has preferred the present Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. The appellant, an L.P. G. Cylinder Distributor, holds an agency of the Indian Oil Corporation. Under order dated 17th November 2003 made by the Assistant Commissioner, Provident Fund, Bhagalpur, the petitioner’s establishment has been held to be within the purview of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The said order has been confirmed in appeal by the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal and also by the Patna High Court LPA No.1056 of 2011 (5) dt.25-08-2011 2 / 2 2 learned single Judge in above CWJC No. 4760 of 2010. Therefore, the present Appeal. Learned counsel Mr. Chakradhari Sharan Singh has appeared for the appellant. He has submitted that the enquiry contemplated has not been properly conducted insofar as none of the alleged employees of the appellant was examined in the proceeding under Section 7A of the Act. In support of his submission, Mr. Singh has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Food Corporation of India Vs. Provident Fund Commissioner & Others [(1990) 1 SCC 68]. We are not impressed by the argument advanced by Mr. Chakradhari Sharan Singh. In view of the concurrent finding recorded by the authority and the Tribunal below and by the learned single Judge, no case for interference is made out. The Appeal is dismissed in limine. Sujit/- (R.M. Doshit, CJ) (Birendra Prasad Verma, J)