JUDGMENT Ravi S. Dhavan, J. - The issue in the present petition is in reference to proceedings under the Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provision Act, 1952, hereinafter referred to as the Provident Fund Act. The petitioner, Messers Samaj Bidi Company, is a partnership firm at Farrukhabad, hereinafter referred to as the petitioner. A certain category of workers have been required by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, hereinafter referred to as the Provident Fund Commissioner, to be amenable to the benefit of the Provident Funds Act. The petitioner states in the writ petition that he holds a licence under die Bidi and Cigar Workers (Conditions of Employment) Act, 1966, hereinafter referred to as the Bidi and Cigar Workers Act. The issue is in reference to the class of workers known as 'home - workers', an expression used in die aforesaid Act. 2. It is clear from Section 4 of the Bidi and Cigar Workers Act that any person who intends to use or allow to be used tiny place or premises as industrial premises would take out a licence under this Act. 3. The petitioner received a notice dated 26 May, 1987 calling upon him to send a representative on 15 June, 1987 in reference to the coverage of its establishment between January, 1986 to March, 1987 and requiring it to produce certain records mentioned in paragraph 2 of the notice. The notice was issued under the Provident Fund Act. 4. The impugned order in pursuance of the notice aforesaid, is of 12 October, 1987 appended as Annexure 7' to the writ petition. The Provident Fund Commissioner has determined an amount of Rs. 6,06832.05 p. as due from the petitioner's establishment from January, 1986 to March, 1987 and has required the deposit of the aforesaid amount with the State Bank of India in fifteen days of the notice. This order has been impugned in the present writ petition. 5. In this order the Provident Fund Commissioner sets on record that during the course of the proceedings the petitioner was required to produce (1) a list of the branchdars and (2) attendance/wage register of the branchdars during the relevant period. But, the petitioner did not make the said records available. As a consequence of not making the material available the Provident Fund Commissioner on the basis of the material before him made an assessment. 6. But, the petitioner did not make the said records available. As a consequence of not making the material available the Provident Fund Commissioner on the basis of the material before him made an assessment. 6. In the writ petition, an issue is being raised on merits whether a certain category of employees, that is, 'home - workers' can be assumed to be the workers, of the establishment. The petitioner resists the order on the ground that this category of workmen are not his employees, but of the branchdars. 7. At the out set the Court after hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel appearing for the Provident Fund Commissioner, made it clear to the parties that in its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court cannot, regard being had to the circumstances of this case, resort to an exercise of a fact finding spree. 8. While an opportunity had been granted to the petitioner by the Provident Fund Commissioner, to place the record or material to fortify its case, at least this much is an record that the petitioner took the defence, in effect, that it does not have any record nor is obliged to produce it. Thus, in this petition, the petitioner cannot come out with the contention that the order impugned is such an order which ought to be quashed. In the face of the facts and circumstances presented before the Provident Fund Commissioner, the letter had no option but to pass an order, on the worth of the material produced. 9. Learned standing counsel for the Provident Fund Commissioner has made submission, to the effect, that the plea or defence of the petitioner, that it does not have any material nor is obliged to produce it, is an erroneous plea. Learned counsel for the Provident Fund Commissioner has shown to the Court that in pursuance of the law which is applicable to the petitioner under which it is obliged to take out a licence for its business and manufacturing operations, the petitioner is obliged to keep certain records. The provisions of the Bidi and Cigar Workers Act have been placed before the Court and it is discernable beyond any reasonable doubt that there are certain records, which the petitioner is obliged to maintain and ought to have been produced in reference to the context. The provisions of the Bidi and Cigar Workers Act have been placed before the Court and it is discernable beyond any reasonable doubt that there are certain records, which the petitioner is obliged to maintain and ought to have been produced in reference to the context. Thus, the deference which was taken before the Provident Fund Commissioner in its application of 21 September, 1987, Annexure 6 - A' to the writ petition, that it docs not have any record in reference to the 'homeworkers' was an erroneous plea, which was not compatible with the law. 10. A perusal of the Bidi and Cigar Workers Act and the Rules framed therein obliges the petitioner to maintain registers. There is special reference to 'homeworkers' and it is not necessary to reproduce the relevant rules as these tire matters of record. Should the petitioner have produced the records, the Provident Fund Commissioner, would have been in a better position to assess the defence of the petitioner on the matter of the relationship of the 'home - workers' with the petitioner's firm. In the rejoinder - affidavit the petitioner has attempted to place several material affidavits affirmed by 'branchdars' making statements, to the effect, that the petitioner has nothing to do with the manufacture of 'bins'; by implication the reference is to 'home - workers'. Producing affidavit before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, when it ought to have been produced before the Provident Fund Commissioner, is of no avail to the petitioner. 11. In the Bidi and Cigar Workers Act under Section 2, the definition clause, in Sub - section (f) an "employee" includes a "home - worker". Certain statutory records are to be maintained by a bidi manufacturer; this is referred to in Chapter IV of the Rules of 1969. There is a special reference to a register of leave with wages (homeworkers), prescribed in Form VII. Chapter V refers to payment of wages to a "homeworker"; this is Rule 30. There is a "home - workers" log book, referred in Rule 33 and prescribed in From XIV. Then, the same rule refers to Form XV, prescribing the 'home - workers" employment register. The petitioner was indiscreet, in being difficult with the Provident Fund Commissioner, by evading the presentation of correct circumstances. 12. There is a "home - workers" log book, referred in Rule 33 and prescribed in From XIV. Then, the same rule refers to Form XV, prescribing the 'home - workers" employment register. The petitioner was indiscreet, in being difficult with the Provident Fund Commissioner, by evading the presentation of correct circumstances. 12. In the interest of justice, let the petitioner be given one more opportunity to respond to the notice of 26 May, 1987, aforesaid. Under Section 7 - A of the Provident Fund Act, the Provident Fund Commissioner is vested with the powers of a Court and can enforce the attendance of any person or examine him on oath; require the discovery and production of documents; receive evidence on affidavit and issue commissions for the examination of witnesses. The affidavits which have been filed before this Court ought to have been filed before the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner. 13. This Court, is, thus making no further observation on the merits of the defence, which the petitioner has yet to take. It is being indicated that the petitioner may, if it so desires appear before the Provident Fund Commissioner upon a date being indicated by the latter between 15 March and 15 April, 1988. The petitioner may now contest the issue afresh, on the notice of 26 May, 1987, after placing all the material which it has been required to place. The Provident Fund Commissioner after affording an opportunity to the petitioner to place the material will deliver his decision on merits by ignoring the decision of 12.10.1987. 14. At the close of arguments learned counsel for the petitioner laid stress upon a decision of the Supreme Court as reported in Ganesh Bidi Works v. Union of India and others, AIR 1974 SC 1832 . This is a decision in which the vires of the enactment, in reference to the context, was considered by the Supreme Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner desires to submit on the point regarding the status of the home - workers with the petitioner firm. The argument at present is out of place and irrelevant, as before the Provident Fund Commissioner the petitioner evaded access to information sought. The order impugned, thus, was on the basis of the record, whatever it was worth. The argument at present is out of place and irrelevant, as before the Provident Fund Commissioner the petitioner evaded access to information sought. The order impugned, thus, was on the basis of the record, whatever it was worth. It is repeated that in its reply on 21.9.1987 the petitioner categorically made a statement before the Provident Fund Commissioner, to the effect, that it has no material nor is obliged to keep it and the question of producing it does not arise. 15. The petitioner has been given one more opportunity to offer its defence before the Provident Fund Commissioner and thus, whatever it desires to contend on merits it must do so in the proceedings before the Provident Fund Commissioner, aforesaid, The petitioner has virtually placed no material before the Provident Fund Commissioner, and consequently is hardly in a position to raise its arguments on merits. In the circumstances, the question of quashing the order, which is sought to impugned, does not arise. Learned counsel appearing for the Provident Fund Commissioner has made a statement at the Bar that the observations of the Court will be kept in mind and followed by giving the petitioner one more opportunity to place its defence on merits. 16. The petition is, thus, dismissed. There will be no order on costs.