1. Petitioner is a Non-Governmental Organization formed as a Society by retired senior officials with the object of rendering service to society at large and is registered under the then Andhra Pradesh (Telangana Areas) Public Societies Registration Act, 1350 Fasli (Act 1 of 1350 F) vide Registration No. 362 of 1987. They are engaged in activities relating to development of competence in water resources, development of farmers, monitoring and evaluation of various schemes implemented for weaker sections, conducting research and studies on irrigation and watershed related activities, and providing consultancy and professional services to Government and non-governmental organizations, all on a non-profit basis.

               1.1. It is stated, petitioner is a non-profit organization formed by retired senior officials to render service to society and is not engaged in any commercial or profit-oriented activity, and that it undertakes specific project works, particularly relating to collection of information on water resources and allied subjects, for which it engages certain volunteers and consultants on need basis, paying them either consultancy charges or expenses out of the project funds received. The persons so engaged by petitioner were only volunteers or consultants and not employees, inasmuch as they were neither appointed on any rolls nor required to work for any fixed hours, and they were not subject to any control or supervision of petitioner, as they independently visited various places to collect information and were also free to engage in other work during the relevant period. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination, can they be treated as employees of Petitioner.

               1.2. Petitioner contends that the amounts paid to such volunteers towards expenses for visiting places, collecting information and assisting in research activities, as well as consultancy charges paid to consultants, were mistakenly and unknowingly recorded by the accounts department as salary payments, though in reality there was absolutely no employer and employee relationship, and the regular staff salaries were always shown separately in the accounts, clearly distinguishing them from such payments, and therefore the claim that such volunteers are employees is wholly imaginary and untenable.

               1.3. In 2014, it is stated, four persons who were earlier associated with Petitioner, having an eye on the fixed deposit amount of the society, raised for the first time in March, 2014 a complaint before the EPF Department alleging that Petitioner had engaged 20 or more employees in 1996 and claiming Provident Fund coverage from that period, which is nothing but an afterthought made after about 18 years and is liable to be rejected on the ground of delay and laches, particularly when such persons had worked all along without ever raising any such issue and no Provident Fund contributions were deducted from their salaries at any time. Even though no limitation is prescribed under the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short, ‘the Act’), such claims cannot be permitted to be raised after an unreasonable delay of nearly two decades and ought to have been raised within a reasonable period of two to three years, and the belated claim itself demonstrates the mala fide intention of the complainants.

               1.4. As per the records available with Petitioner, the Society never engaged 20 employees on any single day at any point of time, and all available and relevant records were produced before the authority during the proceedings under Section 7A, including records for about 15 years, which clearly establish that the number of employees never exceeded the statutory threshold, but the same were not properly considered by the authorities. The observation of the 1st respondent authority that petitioner engaged 20 employees in 1996 based on the report of the Enforcement Officer is untenable, particularly when they specifically denied permission to cross-examine the said Enforcement Officer, and such denial amounts to gross violation of principles of natural justice, rendering the proceedings under Section 7A illegal and unsustainable.

               1.5. The complainants, numbering four, appear to have colluded with the Enforcement Officer and got submitted a report alleging engagement of more than 20 employees in 1996, whereas upon receipt of notice, petitioner made efforts to trace and audit its records but no records of 1996 were available, and despite this, the Authority relied upon photocopies of alleged records submitted by the Enforcement Officer and concluded coverage, which is arbitrary, untenable and unsustainable.

               1.6. The 1st respondent failed to consider the original records produced by Petitioner for a substantial period and instead, relied upon unverified photocopies, and further failed to appreciate that petitioner never deducted any amount towards employee share of Provident Fund contributions, therefore, ought to have waived at least the employee share of contributions for the pre-discovery period, especially considering that the Petitioner is a non-profit organization and is presently a defunct establishment without any employees since 2014. It is also stated, except the four complainants, no other employees or beneficiaries were identified by the 2nd respondent, therefore, no Provident Fund liability can be fastened upon petitioner beyond such identified persons, and in this regard, petitioner had relied upon decisions of the EPF Appellate Tribunal, including M/s Bharat Motor Transport vs. APFC, Delhi (ATA No.209(4) of 2007 decided on 26.07.2016), M/s Videshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. vs. RPFC (ATA No.328(9) of 2011 decided on 20.07.2016), and M/s HPN Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd. vs. Asst. PF Commissioner (ATA No.1252(9) of 2015 decided on 24.08.2016), to contend that unless beneficiaries are identified, no determination of EPF dues can be made, but the said judgments were not considered by the authorities.

               1.7. The 2nd respondent did not furnish any calculation sheet showing the manner in which Rs.52,49,810/- for the period from March, 1996 to September, 2014 was computed, and the basis of such calculation was not disclosed, and no opportunity was given to cross-examine the Enforcement Officer who prepared such report and calculation. It is stated, Petitioner is not liable to pay any EPF contributions in respect of the complainants or otherwise, as it never engaged 20 or more employees at any time, and the determination of liability by the 1st respondent is based solely on presumptions and assumptions without proper appreciation of facts. Petitioner is stated to have preferred Appeal under Section 7-1 of the EPF Act against the order dated 30.11.2016 before the 4th respondent Tribunal in ATA No.01/2017 -CGIT 2017 (238/2018), and prior thereto, the 1st respondent had passed an ex parte order dated 19.11.2014, against which petitioner filed a review petition dated 07.01.2015 under Section 7B of the Act, but during the pendency of the review, respondents forcibly recovered Rs.52,49,810/- from Petitioner's fixed deposit by way of Demand Draft, compelling them to file Writ Petition No. 243 of 2015 wherein by order dated 19.01.2015, it was directed that review petition be considered and recovery be made, subject to final orders.

               1.8. It is further stated, despite the said direction, the 1st respondent rejected the review petition by order dated 18.02.2015 without issuing notice, which led to filing of Writ Petition No.6416 of 2015, wherein by order dated 13.03.2015, the Authority was directed to afford an opportunity of hearing and not to disburse the recovered amount, yet the entire amount of Rs.52,49,810/- had already been recovered from petitioner.

               1.9. Petitioner states that the 4th respondent Tribunal dismissed the Appeal filed by petitioner under Section 7-1 of the Act in ATA No.01/2017 CGIT 2017 (238/2018) by order dated 03.04.2023, served on petitioner on 22.09.2023, without properly appreciating that the burden of proof regarding coverage from 01.03.1996 lies on the complainants and not on petitioner, and erred in placing the burden on petitioner to disprove the Enforcement Officer's report based on photocopies. The Tribunal failed to consider that Petitioner had produced records for the period 1999-2000 to 2010 and attendance and wage registers from 2010 to 2015, which show that at no point more than nine employees were engaged, and further failed to appreciate that the alleged photocopies only reflect payments made to village volunteers who are free-lancers and cannot be treated as employees.

               1.10. The Tribunal failed to consider that no employee had raised any issue regarding Provident Fund coverage from 1996 to 2014 and that the complaint dated 10.03.2014 is belated, and also failed to consider that petitioner cannot be expected to maintain records for more than 18 years, and that the absence of records of 1996 cannot be held against the Petitioner. The Tribunal failed to consider that calculation sheet does not disclose the basis for determining the amount of Rs.52,49,810/- and that no beneficiaries are identified therein, therefore, determination of dues is unsustainable and for all the aforesaid reasons, the impugned orders are illegal, arbitrary, unjust and are liable to be set aside.

2. Respondents 1 to 3 filed counter contending that the 1952 Act and the Schemes framed thereunder are social welfare legislations intended to provide social security in the form of Provident Fund, Pension and Insurance to employees, and respondents are enforcing the statute enacted for the benefit of employees of establishments by ensuring compliance with the provisions of the Act. It is contended that the Act applies to every establishment employing 20 or more persons on any day and mandates compulsory deduction and deposit of Provident Fund contributions, and any failure to deposit such legitimate dues empowers the authorities under Section 7A of the Act to initiate quasi-judicial proceedings to determine and recover such dues. It is further contended that the present writ petition has been filed with a view to defeat the object of the Act, which is to provide social security to employees, and reliance is placed on judicial precedents including RPFC Vs. Shibu Metal Workers (1964-65 (27) SC FJR 491), State Vs. Giridhari Lal Bajaj (1962 II LLJ 46), Office in charge, Sub Regional PF Office Vs. M/s. Godavari Garments Ltd. (2019 LLR 1019), The Daily Partap Vs. RPFC, Punjab (1999 LIC 2099), Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Vs. Hooghly Mills Co. Ltd. & Ors., Organo Chemical Industries Vs. Union of India, and other judgments to contend that the Act being a beneficial social welfare legislation must be interpreted liberally in favour of employees and in furtherance of Directive Principles of State Policy.

               2.1. It is stated, petitioner establishment is covered under the provisions of the Act with effect from 01.03.1996 and was allotted PF Code No. TS/HYD/82357, and as the establishment failed to remit Provident Fund dues for the period from 03/1996 to 09/2014, an inquiry under Section 7A was initiated vide summons dated 04.06.2014. It is contended that after providing ample opportunities, an order dated 19.11.2014 was passed determining Rs.52,49,810/- (Rupees Fifty Two Lakhs Forty Nine Thousand Eight Hundred and Ten only), followed by the prohibitory order dated 07.01.2015 and recovery of the said amount. It is further contended that upon challenge by Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 243 of 2015, this Court by order dated 19.01.2015 directed consideration of review petition dated 07.01.2015, and the same was rejected by order dated 18.02.2015 for want of new material as required under Section 7B(1) of the Act. Thereafter, in Writ Petition No. 6416 of 2015, this Court by order dated 13.03.2015 set aside the order dated 18.02.2015 and remanded the matter for fresh inquiry, pursuant to which summons dated 08.04.2015 were issued and inquiry was conducted, culminating in a fresh order dated 25.11.2016 under Section 7A determining the same amount of Rs.52,49,810/- for the period from 03/1996 to 09/2014. It is further contended that the Appeal filed by Petitioner in A/TS 01/2017, subsequently renumbered as EPFA 238/2018 before the CGIT, Hyderabad, was dismissed by order dated 03.04.2023 confirming the 7A order.

               2.2. As per the report of the Enforcement Officer dated 21.09.2016, upon verification of the records including cash book for the period 1996-97, it was found that salaries were paid to 25 employees for the month of March, 1996, and in the absence of records prior to that period, the establishment was rightly covered with effect from 01.03.1996 under Section 1(3)(b) of the Act. It is contended that Petitioner itself admitted engagement of consultants, retired persons, villagers and students for research and data collection work and payment of amounts to them, and such persons fall within the definition of "employee" under Section 2(f) of the Act, which includes persons employed directly or indirectly or through contractors in connection with the work of the establishment. It is further contended that payments made to such persons constitute wages within the meaning of Section 2(b) of the Act and therefore, attract Provident Fund contributions irrespective of the nomenclature such as volunteers or consultants.

               2.3. Petitioner is the "employer" within the meaning of Section 2(e) of the Act and is bound by statutory obligations under Para 30 and Para 36 of the EPF Scheme, including payment of contributions and maintenance of records, and having failed to discharge such statutory duties, Petitioner cannot take advantage of its own default. It is contended that reliance is placed on judgments including M/s Bidi Supply Co. Vs. RPFC (Orissa High Court, W.P.(C) No.14712 of 2005 decided on 01.07.2016), Ashok Kapil Vs. Sana Ullah (1996) 6 SCC 342, Eureka Forbes Ltd. Vs. Allahabad Bank (2010) 6 SCC 193, and Indrajit Singh Grewal Vs. State of Punjab (2011) 12 SCC 588 to contend that no person can take advantage of his own wrong and statutory obligations cannot be avoided.

               2.4. Petitioner's contention that it employed less than 20 persons is incorrect and amounts to misrepresentation, as it has sought to restrict the definition of employees only to administrative staff while excluding field staff and persons engaged in connection with its activities, which is contrary to the provisions of the Act. It is contended that even persons engaged indirectly, including volunteers or those working on outsourced activities, are employees under Section 2(f) of the Act, and the relationship between such persons and petitioner is that of employer and employee, and payments made to them constitute wages attracting statutory liability.

               2.5. Petitioner failed to produce original records for the relevant period despite being granted as many as 35 opportunities during the inquiry under Section 7A, therefore, adverse inference was rightly drawn, and reliance on the Enforcement Officer's reports dated 15.10.2014 and 21.09.2016 is justified. It is contended that the cash book for March, 1996, which was handed over to the Enforcement Officer on 01.04.2014, clearly shows payment of salaries to 25 employees, and the Petitioner failed to rebut the same by producing original records, therefore, the finding that the establishment employed more than 20 employees is justified. It is further contended that the plea of non-availability of records due to lapse of time is untenable as it is the duty of the employer to maintain such records and produce them when required.

               2.6. According to Respondents 1 to 3, there is no limitation period prescribed under Section 7A of the Act, therefore, the proceedings initiated in 2014 for coverage from 01.03.1996 are valid and lawful, and non-deduction of Provident Fund contributions from employees does not absolve the employer from complying with statutory obligations under the Act. It is stated, the contention regarding non-supply of calculation sheet is vague and untenable as all relevant documents, including Enforcement Officer's reports, were duly furnished to petitioner during the inquiry, and petitioner failed to specify any particular document that was not supplied. It is further contended that determination of dues amounting to Rs.52,49,810/- for the period from 03/1996 to 09/2014 was made after due inquiry under Section 7A of the Act in accordance with principles of natural justice.

               2.7. Finally, it is stated, petitioner failed to utilize the opportunities given during the inquiry proceedings and failed to produce relevant documents to substantiate its claims, and therefore the order passed under Section 7A is valid and sustainable, and the appeal preferred by the Petitioner in ATA No.01/2017-CGIT 2017 (238/2018) having been dismissed by order dated 03.04.2023 confirming the 7A order, no interference is warranted.

3. Respondent No.5 filed counter affidavit contending that at the outset, there is no illegality, arbitrariness, irrationality or violation of principles of natural justice in the order dated 03.04.2023 passed in ATA No.1/2017 (CGIT 2017 (238/2018)) by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal and that the writ petition itself is defective and liable to be dismissed. The contention of petitioner that it engaged only volunteers and paid expenses is specifically denied as false and misleading, and it is contended that appointment letters filed along with the implead application and the cash book seized by the Enforcement Officer clearly establish that the proposed respondents were full-time employees recruited by petitioner, and the plea that they were villagers, students or volunteers working part-time is only taken to avoid liability under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952.

               3.1. It is specifically denied that any consultancy charges were paid to consultants, and it is contended that neither were the employees recruited as consultants nor were they paid consultancy charges, and the writ petitioner itself has admitted that payments were made and recorded as "salary" in its accounts, which is a crucial admission demonstrating that the persons engaged were in fact employees and not volunteers.

               3.2. The definition of "employee" under Section 2(f) of the 1952 Act is wide enough to include all persons employed for wages directly or indirectly in connection with the work of the establishment, including the so-called villagers, volunteers and students engaged by petitioner, therefore, even as per petitioner's own case, it is bound to pay provident fund contributions in respect of such persons. The allegation of petitioner that employees initiated proceedings with an eye on the fixed deposits is denied, and it is contended that respondents merely sought enforcement of their legally enforceable rights, and there is no mala fide, and further there is no limitation under the Act and petitioner squarely falls within the definition of "employer" under Section 2(e) and is bound to comply with the statutory provisions.

               3.3. The contention regarding delay and laches is denied, and it is asserted that petitioner itself admitted that respondents worked for over twenty years, and it is the sole responsibility of the employer to pay provident fund contributions, and such liability cannot be avoided on any ground nor has the petitioner shown that it is exempted from the provisions of the Act. The plea of petitioner that records are not available is denied as a ploy to mislead the Court and avoid liability, and it is contended that petitioner being a registered society is bound to maintain records, and except attendance registers for June 2010 to January 2015 and a vague tally data for the years 2002 to 2014, no relevant records were produced before the authority, and such material does not disprove the finding that more than 20 employees were engaged from the year 1996.

               3.4. It is contended that not merely four but more than 20 employees were engaged by petitioner from 1996 and even prior thereto, and allegations of collusion and malpractices are baseless and made only to evade statutory liability and it is further contended that several opportunities were given to the writ petitioner to produce records and to cross-examine the Enforcement Officer, but despite repeated adjournments, petitioner failed to produce any material to establish that it did not employ more than 20 employees, therefore, the plea of violation of principles of natural justice is false.

               3.5. Except limited records such as attendance register for June 2010 to January 2015 and tally data for 2002 to 2014, no documents were produced despite opportunities, and petitioner is put to strict proof of its claim that it employed less than 20 employees, and its contradictory plea that no PF deductions were made further establishes its attempt to evade statutory liability. The contention that liability is limited to four employees is denied, and it is contended that appointment letters and the cash book seized by the Enforcement Officer clearly establish engagement of multiple employees, and the order passed by the authority is neither arbitrary nor unsustainable, and the writ petitioner is raising vague and unsubstantiated allegations to avoid payment of lawful dues.

               3.6. Writ petitioner had repeated false and misleading pleadings in the grounds, and admission regarding 1996 cash book seized by the Enforcement Officer is significant, and the plea that entries were wrongly recorded as salaries cannot be accepted, particularly when the petitioner failed to produce subsequent records to substantiate such claim, which demonstrates mala fide intention to delay payment of dues. Petitioner deliberately failed to produce records and did not cross-examine the Enforcement Officer despite opportunity and is now falsely alleging violation of principles of natural justice, and it is contended that the Enforcement Officer seized the cash book of 1996 from petitioner's custody, and the subsequent conduct of the petitioner clearly shows delay tactics.

4. Respondent No.6 filed counter contending that there is no illegality or violation of principles of natural justice in the order dated 03.04.2023 passed in ATA No.1/2017 (CGIT 2017 (238/2018)) and Writ Petition is defective. The plea of petitioner that it engaged only volunteers and paid expenses is denied as false, and it is contended that appointment letters and cash book seized by the Enforcement Officer clearly establish that respondents were full-time employees, and the plea that they were part-time volunteers is taken only to avoid liability under the Act.

               4.1. The contention regarding consultancy charges is denied, and it is contended that petitioner itself admitted that payments were made and recorded as salary, and despite sufficient opportunities, petitioner failed to produce any material regarding the format of such payments and instead took repeated adjournments, therefore, cannot allege violation of principles of natural justice. It is stated, as per Section 2(1) of the Act, the definition of ‘employee’ includes all persons employed directly or indirectly in connection with the work of the establishment, including the so-called villagers, volunteers and students, and therefore the petitioner is bound to pay provident fund contributions in respect of such employees.

               4.2. It is stated, the allegation of mala fide intention on the part of employees is denied, and it is contended that respondents have only sought enforcement of their legal rights, and that there is no limitation under the Act, and petitioner falls within the definition of ‘employer’ under Section 2(e) and is bound to comply with the statutory obligations.

               4.3. The contention of delay and laches is denied, and it is asserted that petitioner itself admits that respondents worked for about twenty years, and employer cannot escape liability to pay provident fund contributions nor claim exemption. The plea regarding non-availability of records is denied as a deliberate attempt to avoid liability, and it is contended that petitioner is bound to maintain records and except limited records such as attendance register (June 2010 to January 2015) and tally data (2002 to 2014), no documents were produced, and failure to produce records despite several opportunities disentitles the petitioner from alleging violation of natural justice.

               4.4. It is contended that more than 20 employees were engaged from 1996 and even prior thereto, and petitioner failed to produce any material despite repeated opportunities, and the plea that no opportunity was given is false, and the proceedings under Section 7A clearly record that adequate opportunities were provided. Petitioner is put to strict proof regarding its claim of employing less than 20 employees, and its contradictory stand regarding non-deduction of PF contributions further demonstrates its attempt to evade statutory liability, and the claim that liability is limited to four employees is denied as untenable. Petitioner has raised vague and unsubstantiated allegations in the grounds and is attempting to avoid payment of lawful dues, and its failure to produce subsequent records to explain the entries in the 1996 cash book shows mala fide intention.

5. Heard Sri Hariharan, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Srikanth Hariharan, learned counsel for petitioner, Ms. Trupthi Agarwal, learned Standing Counsel for Respondents 1 to 3 and Smt. Vasudha Nagaraj, learned counsel for Respondents 5 to 26.

6. This Court has carefully considered the submissions made by learned counsel appearing on either side, perused the pleadings, the material placed on record, the orders passed by the authorities under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, and the order dated 03.04.2023 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad in ATA No.01/2017-CGIT 2017 (238/2018).

7. The principal issue that arises for consideration is whether Petitioner establishment is liable to be covered under the provisions of the 1952 Act and whether determination of dues under Section 7A for the period from 03/1996 to 09/2014, culminating in the demand of Rs.52,49,810/-, is sustainable in law.

8. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the 1952 Act is a beneficial social welfare legislation enacted with the object of providing social security to employees engaged in establishments to which the Act applies. The scheme of the Act makes it clear that once the statutory threshold of employment is crossed, the applicability of the Act is automatic, and employer is under a statutory obligation to comply with the provisions relating to enrolment, contribution and maintenance of records. The scope of inquiry under Section 7A of the Act empowers the authority to determine not only the applicability of the Act but also the quantum of dues payable by the employer.

9. In the present case, the record discloses that the Enforcement Officer conducted inquiry and submitted reports dated 15.10.2014 and 21.09.2016, wherein it was specifically recorded that petitioner establishment had engaged more than 20 employees as early as in March, 1996. The said conclusion is based on cash book entries of the establishment for the relevant period, which indicate payment of wages to about 25 persons for March, 1996. The said material forms the foundational basis for fixing the date of coverage as 01.03.1996.

10. Significantly, petitioner has not produced any original records to rebut or disprove the said findings. Though it is contended that the records of 1996 are not available, such a plea cannot be accepted in the absence of any satisfactory explanation. Petitioner, being the employer and custodian of records, is expected to maintain and produce relevant documents to substantiate its case. The failure of petitioner to produce original records, despite being afforded multiple opportunities during the proceedings under Section 7A, justifies the drawing of an adverse inference against it.

11. The contention of Petitioner that the persons engaged were only volunteers or consultants and not employees cannot be accepted in the facts and circumstances of the case. Section 2(f) of the Act defines "employee" in wide and inclusive terms so as to cover any person employed for wages, whether directly or indirectly, in connection with the work of the establishment. The definition is not restricted by nomenclature and extends to all persons who receive wages for work connected with the establishment.

12. In the present case, the material on record clearly establishes that payments were made to several persons and such payments have been reflected in the accounts as salary payments. Even assuming that such persons were termed as volunteers or consultants, the nature of engagement, coupled with payment of wages, brings them squarely within the ambit of "employee" under Section 2(f) of the Act. The plea of petitioner that such entries were made by mistake in the accounts cannot be accepted in the absence of any cogent evidence to substantiate such assertion. The further contention of petitioner that there was no employer-employee relationship is equally untenable. The existence of such relationship is to be determined on the basis of factual indicators such as engagement of persons, payment of wages, and the nexus of such work with the activities of the establishment. The record clearly demonstrates that the persons were engaged for the purposes of petitioner's activities relating to water resource projects and allied work and were remunerated for such engagement. These factors clearly establish the existence of an employer-employee relationship within the meaning of the Act.

13. The plea of delay and laches raised by Petitioner is also devoid of merit. It is an admitted position that no period of limitation is prescribed under Section 7A of the Act for initiation of proceedings. Even otherwise, this Court is of the view that, the cause of action is continuous and that the claim of applicability of law of limitation is to be rejected. The Act being a beneficial legislation intended to secure social security benefits to employees, the authorities are empowered to determine dues whenever such liability comes to light. The mere fact that proceedings were initiated in 2014 in respect of coverage from 1996 does not, by itself, render the proceedings illegal or unsustainable.

14. The contention that the proceedings are vitiated on account of violation of principles of natural justice is not borne out from the record. On the contrary, it is evident that petitioner was issued summons, afforded multiple opportunities and was permitted to participate in the inquiry. The record further discloses that petitioner was granted several opportunities to produce documents and substantiate its case, but failed to do so. In such circumstances, the allegation that no opportunity was provided cannot be accepted.

15. The argument of petitioner that the authorities relied upon photocopies of certain documents, particularly cash book entries of 1996, also does not merit acceptance. Reliance on such material became necessary on account of the failure of Petitioner to produce original records. When the employer, who is in possession of the original documents, fails to produce the same despite opportunity, the Authority is justified in relying upon the available material on record to arrive at its conclusions.

16. The contention regarding non-supply of calculation sheet and lack of clarity in determination of dues is also not tenable. Determination under Section 7A has been made after due inquiry and based on the available records for the period from 03/1996 to 09/2014. Petitioner has not demonstrated any specific error in the computation or any prejudice caused on account of alleged non-supply of calculation details. It is also relevant to note that the order passed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner under Section 7A of the Act has been subjected to appellate scrutiny by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal in ATA No.01/2017-CGIT 2017 (238/2018), and Tribunal, upon detailed consideration of the entire material, has confirmed the findings recorded by the authority. This Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, does not sit as an Appellate Authority over such findings of fact unless the same are shown to be perverse, arbitrary or contrary to law.

17. In the present case, no such perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error has been demonstrated by petitioner warranting interference by this Court. On the contrary, the findings are based on material evidence, are supported by statutory provisions, and are in consonance with the object and scheme of the Act.

18. For all the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the considered opinion that petitioner has failed to establish that the impugned orders suffer from any illegality, arbitrariness or infirmity requiring interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

19. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed, confirming the order dated 03.04.2023 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad in ATA No.01/2017 CGIT 2017 (238/2018), which in turn confirmed the order dated 30.11.2016 passed under Section 7A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 determining Rs.52,49,810/-(Rupees Fifty Two Lakhs Forty Nine Thousand Eight Hundred and Ten only) for the period from 03/1996 to 09/2014. No costs.

20. Consequently, the miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.