JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition has been filed with a prayer to quash and set aside the order dated April 17, 1988 (Annexure-2) and further to hold that petitioner-company is not covered by the provisions of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for brevity 'the Act, 1952'). In the alternate, it has been prayed that the matter may beremanded back for giving full opportunity to the petitioner to present its case. 2. Petitioner is a .Company registered under the Companies Act and carries on business of manufacturing of edible oil. On the report of Inspector of respondent stating that petitioner-company is covered under the Provisions of Act, 1952, since it had more than 20 employees in November, 1983, respondent determined the amount of contributory fund holding the petitioner liable under provisions of Section 7-A of the Act, 1952 for the period December, 1983 to December, 1984. 3. It is submitted by Shri M.K. Shah, learned counsel that since the above order was ex-parte, on representation of petitioner the matter was re-opened and re-considered. The petitioner filed written-statement on April 13,.1988 (Anx. 1) mainly containing that the names of the workers mentioned in muster-role of November, 1983 were casual, as their employment was sought only for couple of days. It was also contended that a Chowkidar, who is Nepali and expected to make rounds at night in the Oil Industrial Area and does not enter the premises of the petitioner-company should not be treated as employee of the petitioner- company. It is submitted that in 1983-84 only three employees were employed on regular basis including one Chowkidar and in November 1985-86 there were 5 regular employees. The details of the regular employees were also mentioned in Annexure-1. It is contended by learned counsel that, full opportunity to petitioner to produce evidence and hear arguments of his counsel, was not given, as is evident from order-sheet dated February 26,1988 and April 13, 1988, which have been reproduced in para 8 of the petition. Therefore impugned order Annexure-2 should be set aside, since it has been passed in arbitrary manner ignoring the principles of natural justice. Apart from this, casual employees have been wrongly included in calculation of the number of employees, which could not be done in view of Section 2(f) of the Act, 1952 without looking into Section 1(3) (a) of the said Act. 4. Apart from this, casual employees have been wrongly included in calculation of the number of employees, which could not be done in view of Section 2(f) of the Act, 1952 without looking into Section 1(3) (a) of the said Act. 4. 1 have heard learned both the counsel and also gone through the documents on record. 5. Annexure-1 is the written-statement filed by the petitioner before the Commissioner, Regional Provident Fund. It was submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner that they had made a prayer in the written-statement to be given an opportunity to produce witness/evidence in support of their case. However, I do not find any such prayer, made in the written-statement. The submission of the learned counsel that such prayer was in any case made verbally, is of no consequence, since no such prayer finds place in Annexure-1. The ex-parte order, which was passed against the petitioner was set aside and matter was re-opened and full opportunity to petitioner was given, as is evident from the written-statement itself. If the petitioner wanted to produce any evidence/record, it was for him to do so. Merely mentioning few names in the written-statement will not clinch the issue of the number of the employees unless the record is produced by the petitioner to verify his claim. It was pointed out by Shri Narendra Jain, learned counsel that Annexure-R/5, copy of note- sheet shows that representative of petitioner was also present. On this date, the petitioner made request for adjournment to enable him to get the record verifed from the Enquiry Officer during the first week of November, 1987. Therefore, proceedings were adjourned to 2.12.87. Annexure-R/6 is note-sheet of 2.12.1987 when the Advocate representing, the petitioner was also present. It is mentioned in this note-sheet that verification was not done as the petitioner was contesting that the Company was not covered by the provisions of the Act, 1952. However, it was assured on behalf of petitioner that they will work-out the amount according to the eligibility and get the same verified from Enquiry-Officer by producing relevent record required by him. The matter was adjourned to 20.1.88. The note-sheet Qf 20.1.1988 shows that nobody was present on behalf of petitioner and a telegram was received requesting for adjournment. The Departmental representative informed that he had verified the registers and noted the data for assessment. The matter was adjourned to 26.2.1988. The matter was adjourned to 20.1.88. The note-sheet Qf 20.1.1988 shows that nobody was present on behalf of petitioner and a telegram was received requesting for adjournment. The Departmental representative informed that he had verified the registers and noted the data for assessment. The matter was adjourned to 26.2.1988. On 26.2.1988 the note-sheet mentions that the petitioner has neither filed any written-statement nor deposited any dues. His counsel is not available today and he requested for adjournment. The matter was put up for 13.4.1988. On 13.4.1988 Advocate for petitioner was present. It is mentioned that "heard Shri Bhargava, in respect of written-statement filed today. Reserved for orders." The perusal of these order-sheets abundantly showed that petitioner was given more than full opportunity for producing evidence/record/written statement and the matter was adjourned several times at his request. The last order- sheet dated 13.4.88 shows that his counsel was heard. This means that arguments of the counsel were heard in support of the written statement filed on that date. If petitioner wanted to produce any further evidence/witnesses/documents, his counsel could have made such requests. But no such request was made and matter was reserved for passing order. The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Andhra Pradesh Vs. Shri T.S. Hariharan 1971 (11) SCC 68 . In M/s Reliable Water Supply Service of India P. Ltd. Vs. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner 1974 Lab. I. C. 38 , it was held in para 8 that the principles of natural justice only require that the aggrieved person should have an opportunity of having his say in the matter. In this case full opportunity of hearing was given to petitioner and the matter was infact remanded for this purpose. In the above mentioned matter, it was observed by this Court that there is no rule of natural justice that at every stage a person is entitled to present his case. Thus, this authority is of no help to the petitioner, since he infact was given personal hearing also as is mentioned in the impugned order. Reliance has also been placed on F.N. Roy Vs. Collector of Customs, Calcutta AIR 1957 SC 648 , which is of no help to petitioner. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner was given full opportunity to produce his evidence etc. Reliance has also been placed on F.N. Roy Vs. Collector of Customs, Calcutta AIR 1957 SC 648 , which is of no help to petitioner. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner was given full opportunity to produce his evidence etc. and there is no force in the contention of the learned counsel that full opportunity was not given to him. 6. It was also contended by the learned counsel that casual employees have been taken to be regular employees to bring the petitioner-company within the purview of provisions of the Act, 1952. It is pointed out by learned counsel for the respondent that Annexure-R/1 is enquiry report submitted by the Inspector. This shows that the petitioner-company was established in 1961. It was submitted that it is only when the petitioner-company employed more than 20 employees in the year 1983 that the provisions of the Act 1952 have been made applicable to him. Apart from this, Annexure-R/2 gives details of the petitioner company including the number of persons employed in its establishment. Column No. 7 of this Annexure shows that there were 21 to 24 employees including casual workers in the month of November, 1983. The specific datas have also been mentioned. This Annexure has been signed by the authorised representative of the petitioner-company. Therefore, it can be said that the facts mentioned therein are admitted by the petitioner-company. In Annexure-2 it has been rightly held in the impugned order that the petitioner company fulfils the other conditions envisaged under Section 1(3)(a) of the Act, 1952. 7. Section 2(f) reads as under : Section 2(f) 'employees' means any person who is employed for wages in any kind of work, manual or otherwise, in or in connection with the work of an establishment and who gets his wages directly or indirectly from the employer, and includes any person employed by or through a contractor in or in connection with the work of the establishment." The Commissioner Provident Fund, therefore, keeping in view of the above definition rightly held that there was no force in the contention of the petitioner that Nepali Chowkidar was Part-Time and, therefore, cannot be considered to be an employee of the petitioner-company. It may further be pointed out that this Court will not enter in an enquiry into factual aspects of the controversy regarding actual number of employees/ regular or casual under its extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, it may be observed that the statement Annexure-R/2 giving number of the employees has been signed by the representative of the petitioner-company. If the petitioner wanted to raise any controversy he was well within his rights to have produced documentry evidence/register showed (sic showing) the number of regular/casual employees an claimed by him. This has not been done inspite of full opportunity given to him. Since the statement is signed by authorised representative of the petitioner there is no reason to disbelieve the same. Same view was taken in M/s Oriental Agencies, Jaipur & ors. Vs. R.P.F.C. & anr 1988 (1) RLR 221 . It may also be pointed out that a Division Bench of this Court in matter of Railway Employees Co-operative Banking Society Ltd. Vs. The Union of India & ors. 1980Lab. I.C. 1212 , held that "where the establishment engaged a Sweeper who worked twice or thrice a week, a night watchman who kept watch on other shops in the locality also and a gardner who came for work ten days in a month, are employees of the establishment. While holding this view reliance was placed on a decision of the Apex Court in The Ahmedabad Mfg. & Calico Ptg. Co. Ltd. Vs. Ramtahel Ramanand & ors 1972 Lab. I.C. 864 . I am, therefore, of the opinion that the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner rightly held that petitioner is employing more than 20 workers and is liable to be covered under-the provisions of Act, 1952. 8. I, therefore, do not find any force in this writ petition, which is, therefore,dismissed with no order as to costs.Petition dismissed . *******