FAROOQ HASSAN, J.—The petitioner, a registered partnership firm carrying on the business of cutting and processing of marbles at Makarana, District Nagaur, was informed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Jaipur (respondent No. 2) by its letter dated 7. 12. 1965 that the Employees Provident Fund Act, 1962, (for brevity the P. F. Act) and the scheme framed thereunder have been made applicable to the petitioner business and further that, on making inquiries, the petitioners establishment revealed to come under the scheduled head Electrical, Mechanical & General Engineering Products. Therefore, under the aforesaid letter (Annexure 1) the petitioner was directed to deduct provident fund contribution from the wages of the eligible employees with effect from September, 1965 onwards. The petitioner contested the direction issued under Annexure 1, and in its reply (Annexure 2) to that it stated that the PF Act was not applicable to its establishment because, the strength of employees in the establishment was less than 20 persons; that, they did not manufacture and produce any Engineering products & therefore, the coverage under the head Engineering & Engineering Product does not arise and it is not covered by Schedule I of the PF Act; and that, the Provident Fund Commissioner has wrongly counted the casual workers among the employees of its establishment in order to cover it in the scheme wrongly. 2. The petitioner also moved the Secretary Labour Department of the Government of India under Section 19(a) of the PF Act, and submitted that, its establishment is not engaged in manufacturing the electrical, mechanical & general engineering products as mentioned in Schedule 1 of the PF Act; that, their main work is only of manufacturing marble products & cutting with processing of marble, therefore, such sort of work cannot be categorised under schedule I of the PF Act and the coverage as reported by the respondent No. 2 is arbitrary, wrong and against the provisions of the PF Act; and that, the petitioner has not ever employed more than 20 employees. 3. The Under Secretary to the Government of India by letter dated 1. 2. 3. The Under Secretary to the Government of India by letter dated 1. 2. 1968 (Annexure 4) informed the petitioner that, its establishment has been engaged in producing marble chips & tiles, there were 23 employees in the month of August, 1965, pio-wala, cart-driver & gardener were included as being engaged in manufacturing process, and therefore, according to the respondents, the establishment of the petitioner was treated to be cover-able under the head, electrical, mechanical, & General engineering products. Hence, the petitioner was directed to submit their view point within thirty days of receipt of the said letter (Annexure 4). 4. Again, though the petitioner reiterated the same stand as has been taken before the respondent No. 2 & the Secretary but, it has also taken additional plea to the effect that its factory has not been engaged in manufacturing the tiles and as such, is not cover-able under the schedule tiles, and denied the fact of 23 persons having employed in the establishment on any day, and according to the petitioner, the strength has always been below 20. 5. Therefore, the Legal Adviser, Ministry of Labour to the Government of India under his order dated 3.3.1977 (Annexure 6) held that the petitioners establishment did not fall within the Entry, "electrical mechanical & General Products but covered by saw mills and, therefore, its establishment should be classified under the Entry 66 "Saw mills of the Schedule" because this entry covered even the saw-mills engaged in cutting stones (this entry of saw mills was added to the Schedule by notification dated 7.2.1962 w.e.f. 30.10 1962) coupled with arriving at the finding that the petitioners establishment had engaged more than 22 employees at the relevant lime including casual labours who were included within the definition of employee, of the establishment. 6. It has been conceded by the petitioner in the writ petition that the aforesaid decision (Annexure 6) has been taken in its behind and so, the orders should be termed as expert, and in these circumstances, the petitioner alleged that the decision (Annexure 6) is without jurisdiction, illegal and contrary to law. 7. It is also the case of the petitioner that against the aforesaid decision, the petitioner again submitted representation in detail to the Central Government for consideration of the matter but the representation was not considered and no reply has so far been received by the petitioner. 7. It is also the case of the petitioner that against the aforesaid decision, the petitioner again submitted representation in detail to the Central Government for consideration of the matter but the representation was not considered and no reply has so far been received by the petitioner. And, in pursuance of the order dated 1.3.1977 (Annexure 6), the respondent No. 2 Commissioner has been proceeding under Section 7(a) of the PF Act for determination of money dues payable by the petitioner from 7.9.1965, and further pressing hard on the petitioner to pay the provident fund dues, as is the case of the petitioner in the writ petition. 8 According to the petitioner, the Central Government vide notification No. GSR 204/dt. 31.1.1977 published in Gazette Part (2) Section 3(1) dated 12 2.1977 p. 567, further specified the establishment mentioned in the Schedule of the PF Act as item. Stone quarries producing stone chips, stone sets, stone holders and ballasts. 9. Aggrieved against the aforesaid action of the respondents, the petitio-ner has filed this writ petition with the prayer to quash the orders (Annexure 1) & (Annexure 6) declaring that the petitioners establishment did not come under the Schedule I of the PF Act and, therefore, the provident fund contribution as required by the PF Act is not liable to be deposited by the petitioner. 10. The first and foremost contention on behalf of the petitioner while drawing our attention to the Entry S. No. 13 of the Appendix I attached to he PF Act, is that the Legal Adviser, Ministry of Labour, Government of India under the impugned order (Annexure6) failed to consider that the establishments which are engaged in the process or treating of wood including saw mills can be covered by the aforesaid Entry S. No. 13. Learned counsel added that since the process of or treating of wood is essential for covering the establishment under the aforesaid Entry and as the petitioner has not been doing any work of processing or treating of wood, its establishment can not be covered under the said Appendix I. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Legal Adviser has committed an illegality in holding that the petitioners establishment comes within the definition of saw mills. 11. 11. Before we deal with the aforesaid contention a reference to the relevant Entry S. No. 13 of the Appendix I attached to the PF Act would be advant-aeeous Appendix I to the PF Act is a list of non-factory industries to which the Employees Provident Funds Act, 1952 has been made applicable under Sec. 1(3) (b) At. Sl . No. 13 to which the learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention (which has been made effective w.e.f. 31.10.1962 vide notification No G. S. R. 1232, dated 7.9.1962-Gaz. of India, dated 1.5.1962, Pt. II, S. 3(i), p. 1341), it has been mentioned as under:- S No. Name of Industries Date of Application Notification No. & date 13. (1) Establishments engaged in the processing or treatment of wood including manufacture of- 31.10.62 GSR 1232. dt. 7.9.62 (Gaz, of India, dt. 1.5.62, pt. II. S. 3(i), p. 1341) (i) Hard board or chipboard; (ii) jute or textile wooden, accessories; (iii) cork products; (iv) wooden furniture; (v) wooden sports goods; (vi) cane or bamboo products; (vii) wooden battery separators. (2) Saw Mills. (3) Wood seasoning kilns. (4) Wood preservations plants. (5) Wood worker-shops. 12. Having browsed through the afore-extracted part of the Appendix I and perused the writ petition of the petitioner, we are of the view that the contention which was put in the fore-front by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not tenable and we are unable to accept it. The petitioner in its representation dated 30 7.66 (Annexure 3) addressed to the Secretary Labour Department made under section 19 A of PF Act, has, itself, stated that its factory is not engaged in the manufacture of electrical, mechanical & general engineering products, and its manufacturing work is only sawing and manufac-turing of chips which according to the petitioner are not included in electrical 8c mechanical products and are also not produced as specified in the Appendix 1 of the PF Act. It is thus clear that the petitioner in its aforesaid representation itself admitted the character of their establishment and it was alleged to be saw mill. It is thus clear that the petitioner in its aforesaid representation itself admitted the character of their establishment and it was alleged to be saw mill. In view of this clear admission, we are of the opinion that the petitioner cannot go beyond its admission and even in the absence of any assertion on behalf of the department claiming the establishment of the petitioner as saw mill then also in the presence of the aforesaid admission of the petitioner, the establishment of the petitioner could safely be treated as saw mill and rightly so, by the Legal Adviser. The Chambers Twentieth Century Dictionary at page 1202 gives the meaning of "saw" as - a toothed cutting instrument. Similarly the Concise Oxford Dictionary - 5th Edn. gives the meaning of "saw" as - "an implement usually of steel worked by hand or mechanically and with variously shaped blade or edge having teeth of various forms cut in or attached to it for dividing wood, metal, stone, etc. by reciprocating rotary motion." The Websters New International Dictionary, Vol. 2 Second Edition-Unabridged at page 2224 gives the meaning of *saw* as - "A tool or instrument, consisting essentially (usually) of a thin flat blade or plate of tempered steel with a continuous series of teeth on the edge, used for cutting wood, metal, bone, etc." The meaning of saw Mill given in Oxford Dictionary is - "Driven by water or steam for mechanically sawing." 13. On a look at the aforesaid meanings given by the dictionaries. Saw Mill would mean a Saw Mill which is engaged in cutting wood, stone or metal. In this view of the matter, there is no force in this contention that Saw-Mill as mentioned at SI. No. 13 of the Appendix-I which has been added by notification dated 7.9.1962 would mean only a Saw-Mill cutting wood. Saw Mill would mean a Saw Mill which is engaged in cutting wood, stone or metal. In this view of the matter, there is no force in this contention that Saw-Mill as mentioned at SI. No. 13 of the Appendix-I which has been added by notification dated 7.9.1962 would mean only a Saw-Mill cutting wood. Confronted, a futile attempt was made by the learned counsel for the petitioner in arguing that while issuing the notification by which the entry saw-mill was added to the Appendix I mentioning four other entires, namely, (65), (67) (68) & (69) which according to the petitioner pertain to wood, the Government had in mind to give limited meaning of sawmill engaged only in cutting wood, To our mind, there is no basis to draw such a conclusion which the petitioner likes in the aforesaid manner, simply because the entry is wedged between other entries relating to wood. If the intention of the Government was only to include saw-mills engaged in cutting wood, it would have expressly stated as saw-mills engaged in cutting woods since saw-mills engaged in cutting other materials like stone or metal were to be excused. Since the entry has not been restricted or qualified so as mean as saw-mills engaged only in cutting wood, the entry has to be given a sufficiently wide meaning as is understood from the dictionary meaning. 14. Moreover, the Petitioner-company, itself, in its representation dated 30.6.1966 (Annexure 3) admitted the character of its establishment as saw mill by stating in para 2 that their manufacturing work is only sawing; and further it is not the case of the petitioner that its establishment is engaged in the business of wood and the saw-mill is being used for dividing the wood or making its pieces Thus admittedly, the petitioner-company in the engaged in the business of stone & marbles, and its establishment which has been named by the petitioner, itself, as saw-mill is engaged in cutting the stones & marbles. This is very significant circumstance to draw inference That the petitioners saw-mill is covered by entry (66) Saw-mill which was added by notification dated 7.9.1962, referred to above. 15. In Regional P.F. Commissioner Vs Shibu Metals works (1), it has been laid that the interpretation of the Entry should be such which would extend the benefit to large number of workmen. 16. 15. In Regional P.F. Commissioner Vs Shibu Metals works (1), it has been laid that the interpretation of the Entry should be such which would extend the benefit to large number of workmen. 16. Now, we pass on the next phase of the arguments of the learned. counsel for the petitioner. In this context, the contention was that the petitioner has not engaged 23 employees in its establishment. We may state that the report of the Provident Fund Inspector dated 17.11.1965 shows that the petitioners establishment has been engaged in marble sawing producing slabs and chips, and had employed nine persons according to attendance register, eight as per contract register and six more paid through cash book making a total of 23 employees as in August 1965. The petitioner has tried to explain this position in its rep esenta-tion that four out of 23 employees, are not regular employee, but casual emplo-yees and in these circumstances, Shri Salma, Panna Singh, Smt Kesari & Mewa Ram who were water carmen, water-Servers, water-women & gardener, respec-tively are wrongly included treating them as employees by the Inspector, and according to the petitioner, they cannot be counted as employees for the purposes of covering the establishment under the P. F Act Though, in this this writ petition we are not empowered to consider this point as to how many persons were employed at a particular time, because it is a question of of fact which cannot be allowed to be agitated before this Court while exercising extra ordinary juridic-t.on under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, but in order to meet ends of justice we would like only to browse through the findings of fact. However, we may observe that the respondent No, 2 visited the petitioners establishment personally and got the statement on 17.11.1965 showin the details of number of employees employed by the petitioner and also other particulars duly signed by Shri, Mohd. Ramjan, Partner of the petitioners establishments as is the case of the respondents in their reply to the writ petition. The said statement which has been annexed to the reply as Annexure R 1. make the case crystal clear that admittedly the petition-company employed more than 23 persons for the purposes of his establishment. 17. Ramjan, Partner of the petitioners establishments as is the case of the respondents in their reply to the writ petition. The said statement which has been annexed to the reply as Annexure R 1. make the case crystal clear that admittedly the petition-company employed more than 23 persons for the purposes of his establishment. 17. The Legal Adviser in Annexure 6 has elaborately considered the objection taken by the petitioner in its representation with regard to the number of persons employed in the petitioners establishment. The Legal Adviser in para 9,10,11 & 12 of the order (Annexure 6) has dealt with separately the case of the four employees who are said to have been engaged by the petitioner on casual basis; and came to this conclusion that the aforesaid employees ought to have been considered as employees of the petitioners establishment for which the legal Adviser has given detailed reasons which cannot be re-appreciated making this Court as an appellate forum as we are here in writ forum. And we refrain ourselves from deciding the controversy as to whether the aforesaid employees are casual workers or not and whether they cannot be counted as employees of the establishment of the petitioner. 18. We are also of the opinion that the authorities concerned have passed the orders after considering the objections of the petitioner and also the provisions of law, A notice was served upon the petitioner for his appearance before the respondents but its representatives failed to attend the hearing of the case. 19. Thus, considered, we hold that the petitioners establishment comes under the provisions of the Act, and, therefore, it is its own duty to deposit the amount and this deposit can not be said to be a compulsion as is stated in its writ petition. 20. In view of the foregoing discussions, we do not find any reason to interfere with the findings recorded by the authorities under the PF Act warranting interference by this Court under its extraordinary jurisdiction. 21. In the result, we dismiss this writ petition with no order as to costs.