JUDGMENT 1. This writ petition is directed against the order (Annexure 6) dated 2nd April, 1982 passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commissioner') under section 7 of the Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') requiring the petitioner to pay provident fund dues etc. for the period from April, 1975 to January, 1982 and render all relevant returns within 15 days failing which the dues would be assessed under section 7A of the Act & would be recovered as arrears of land revenue. It appears that during pendency of this writ petition an order dated 7th February, 1983/31st January, 1984 has been passed by the Commissioner whereby the amount payable by the petitioner has been determined for the period upto 16th April, 1982. Copy of the said order has been filed by the respondent as Annexure R. 2/1 to the application for vacation of stay order dated 26th August, 1983. 2. In the writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of the provisions of Section 7-A of the Act. but in view of the fact that the validity of the said provisions has been upheld by a division bench of this Court in M/s Ess Dee Carpets v. Union of India and Ors. D. B. Special Appeal No. 366/1984 decided on 29th January, 1986 judgment of S.B. reported in 1985 RLR 74 the learned counsel for the petitioner did not agitage the said question. 3. The only contention that has been urged by Shri Kala, the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Commissioner has determined that the establishment of the petitioner is covered by the provisions of the Act without considering the submissions made by the petitioner in his reply (Annexure 4) and that the order of the Commissioner holding that the establishment of the petitioner is covered by the Act, has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. We have perused the impugned order dated 2nd April, 1982 and we find that in the said order the Commissioner has referred to the fact that the petitioner has admitted in writing on 10th December, 1976 that it had employed 21 persons in its establishment in March, 1975. We have perused the impugned order dated 2nd April, 1982 and we find that in the said order the Commissioner has referred to the fact that the petitioner has admitted in writing on 10th December, 1976 that it had employed 21 persons in its establishment in March, 1975. In other words the conclusion of the Commissioner that the establishment of the petitioner is covered by the provisions of the Act, is based on the admission of the petitioner. A photostat copy of the said admission was also sent to the petitioner along with the letter dated 2nd April, 1982 which has been placed on record in this writ petition. The said communication is on the letter-head of the petitioner firm. It contains the name of the Proprietor, the date of set up and manufacturing activity and employment strength. With regard to employment strength in the statement, it is stated in the said letter that in December, 1971 the said strength was 17, in January, 1975 it was 15, in February, 1975 it was 15, and in March, 1975 it was 21, Break-up of the aforesaid strength of 21 is also given in the said document and it bears the signature of the Proprietor of the petitioner firm. Shri Kala has urged that reliance should not have been placed on the said so-called admission in view of the submissions contained in the reply (Annexure 4) sent by the petitioner. Shri Kala has also urged that 21 employees mentioned in the said admission include 2 other persons employed as casual labourers and casual employees do not fall within the purview of definition of 'employee' contained in Section 2 of the Act. 4. We have given our due consideration to the aforesaid submissions of Shri Kala, but we are unable to accept the same. In our opinion the Commissioner was justified in placing reliance on the admission of the petitioner dated 10th December, 1976 wherein the petitioner himself had intimated the strength of the employees in the factory. The finding recorded by the Commissioner on the basis of the said admission cannot be open to challenge under Article 226 of the Constitution and the petitioner cannot be allowed to say that total number of employees in the petitioner's establishment was less than 20 and, therefore, it was not covered by the provisions of the Act. The finding recorded by the Commissioner on the basis of the said admission cannot be open to challenge under Article 226 of the Constitution and the petitioner cannot be allowed to say that total number of employees in the petitioner's establishment was less than 20 and, therefore, it was not covered by the provisions of the Act. In this connection we may refer to the decision of division bench of this Court in M/s Oriental Agencies v. R.P.F. Commissioner, D. B. Civil Writ petition No. 410 of 1977 decided on November 28, 1988 wherein also there was an admission in the Accounts of the petitioner's establishment with regard to number of employees in the establishment of the said firm and this Court held that in view of the said admission, the establishment had been rightly held to be covered under the provisions of the Act. In the circumstances, in our opinion, no ground is made out for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs.Petition Dismissed. *******