1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 10429 OF 2010 M/s. Raymond Cloth Merchant ...Petitioner Versus The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (SRO) Aurangabad ...Respondents ..... Mr. R.M. Sharma, advocate for the petitioner ..... CORAM: S. S. SHINDE, J. DATED: 24TH NOVEMBER, 2010 PER COURT:- 1 Heard Mr. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2 The authority on visiting the establishment i.e. M/s. Raymond Clothes Merchants, Adalat Road, Aurangabad, had found that 22 employees were working in the establishment, therefore, the authorities had made applicable the provisions of Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 to the establishment of the petitioner. 3 Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner had filed appeal before the appellate authority. The appellate authority 2 confirmed the findings of the department that there are 22 employees are working with the petitioner establishment. Of course, the appellate court on the strength of the material produced before it has arrived to that findings, therefore, the department as well as the appellate authority found that there are 22 employees are working with the petitioner establishment. 4 Counsel for the petitioner submits that required procedure, as contemplated, is not followed while coming to the conclusion that 22 employees are working with the petitioner establishment. Counsel further submits that the relevant record and the representation made by the petitioner have not been properly considered by the appellate authority. In my view, once there are concurrent finding recorded that there are 22 employees working with the petitioner establishment, no interference is warranted under writ jurisdiction. The possible view is taken by the appellate authority. Writ petition therefore, stands dismissed summarily. ( S. S. SHINDE. J.) rlj/