ORDER The petitioner, which is a Small Scale Unit, has moved this Court against an order dated 30.11.88 (Annexure-b) passed under section 7A of the Employees Provident Fund Act, whereunder the Employees Provident Fund Act has been extended to the petitioner's establishment and on further demanded compliance of the liabilities under the Act. 2. Learned c0unsel for the petitioner contends that the Act has no applicability to the establishment, inasmuch as the petitioner has never appointed more than 8 to 10 persons which will be borne out by all the registers maintained by the establishment in regular course of business and inspected from time to time by the inspecting staff of the department. 3. Mr. Giri appearing on behalf of the respondents on the other hand, submitted that in the month of June, 1982 there was an inspection of the establishment and on spot verification the Enforcement Officer found 21 persons working in the establishment and all the 21 persons arc being paid, as would be evident from the records of the establishment. It is also stated that the said inspection was made in presence of one of the partners who had counter-signed the report. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner produced before us the attendance register of June 1982, from which we find that on none of the day such number of persons was noticed in the attendance register. It is true that the management may have on their rolls persons whose attendance register may not be kept in the regular course of business. It is a common feature that more persons are kept under employment on the basis of chits and vouchers also, so that the establish men t may be saved from the application of provident fund. It is, therefore, the duty of the departmental authorities and their enforcement branch to make occasional surprise inspections from time to time. 5. The argument of Mr. Giri is that in June 1982 on one day the enforcement staff found 21 persons working in the establishment and that is the end of the matter as to the liability of the establishment, because the law is well settled that once the. Act applies, it cannot be made inoperative by reducing the strength of workmen. This legal proposition is quite correct. Act applies, it cannot be made inoperative by reducing the strength of workmen. This legal proposition is quite correct. But, the other view of the law is also well settled that if on one occasion for a short period under certain exigencies the establishment employs more than 21 persons, that will not be deemed to be an employment in course of the business of the management, as has been held in the decisions reported in 1971 S.C. 1519, 1978 B.B. C.J. 337 and 1973 L.I.C. 36. It was held in these cases that the word 'employment' must be considered as employment in the regular course of business of the establishment and such employment would not include any employment of few persons for a short period on account of pressing necessity or some emergency beyond the control of the establishment. It is for this reason that the respondents must have occasional inspection of the establishment. 6. The petitioner's counsel produced before us a large number of registers to indicate that their records were not seen, may be could not be produced at the time, when the impugned order was passed. Having cursorily glanced through some of the registers produced before us today, we are satisfied that the authorities should reconsider the matter by looking into all the registers maintained by the establishment and come to a fresh conclusion as to the applicability of the Act to the establishment bearing in view the law that has been indicated above. 7. Annexure-IS, accordingly, is quashed and the matter is sent back to the Provident Fund Commissioner for its reconsideration after giving opportunity to the petitioner to produce evidence, oral and documentary, in support of their contentions as to the non-applicability of the Act to its organization. No notice be given to the establishment as Mr. Priyadarshi, learned counsel for the petitioner, undertakes to appear before the authority on 21st August, 1989, who will then fix a date of hearing and/ or hear the case on that date, as he deems fit and proper. Application allowed.