1 I N THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No. 3939 OF 2007 Shri Nannath Indl. Training Institute/Centre v. Union of India & anr. . _______________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's orders Mr.J.M.Shamkuwar Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr.Shyam Ahirkar Advocate for Resp. no.1. Mr. R.S. Sundaram Advocate for Res. no.2. .... CORAM: A.B. CHAUDHARI, J. DATED : 04 th SEPTEMBER, 2007. Heard Mr.Shamkuwar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Ahrikar learned Central Government counsel and Mr.Sundaram, learned counsel for respondent no.2. 2. Mr.Shamkuwar, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the 22 employees , who are alleged to have been working, in fact, have been found not to be working as per the inspection report and, 2 therefore, the provisions of Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Act, 1952 will have no application. He further argued that the petitioner though not covered under the net of the said Act has been wrongly assessed. 3. Mr. Sundaram, learned counsel for respondent no.2, raised a preliminary objection saying that the petitioner is having alternate and efficacious remedy of regular statutory appeal before the appellate tribunal, which the petitioner has not availed. He also argued that the questions of fact which were sought to be raised by Mr.Shamkuwar cannot be gone into writ jurisdiction of this Court. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the rival parties, to my mind whether the establishment is covered by the provisions of the aforesaid Act or not is a pure question of fact. Unless on facts, the number of employees and all other requirements are 3 examined, it is not possible to adjudicate upon the said subject. I do not find any good reason for the petitioner not to go before the appellate tribunal by filing regular statutory appeal which, in the submission of Mr.Sundaram, would be within limitation, if the appeal is filed immediately. For the reasons therefore I do not propose to entertain the present writ petition. Petitioner is, however, given liberty to file appeal before the appellate tribunal. Petition rejected. JUDGE /TA/