R. H. ZAIDI, J. ( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Satish Chaturvedi appearing for the respondents. ( 2 ) BY means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner prays for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 5. 7. 1999 whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 7 (1) of the Employees provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 against the order dated 18. 2. 1998 has been allowed and the case has been remanded to respondent No. 2 with the observations that the question of coverage has already become final. ( 3 ) IT appears that in the proceedings under the aforesaid Act order dated 2. 6. 1995 was passed in exercise of powers under Clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 7a. Against the said order, no appeal was filed by the petitioner. Respondent No. 2, therefore, proceeded to determine the amount due from the petitioner in exercise of power under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 7a. Order was thereafter passed on 18. 2. 1990. It is not necessary to state all facts relating filing writ petition in this Court and the orders passed therein. It would suffice to state that appeal was filed against the order dated 18. 2. 1998 only, by the petitioner. The appeal filed by the petitioner has been allowed by impugned Judgment and order. Operative portion of the said order is quoted below : "the appeal is partly allowed. The impugned order is set aside to the extent that determination may be done by a speaking order disclosing the basis of determination. The appellants wilt be afforded one opportunity to produce all the records and statements extracted from those records to make out their own case quite clear. If because of some emergency they cannot produce all the records on one day, one more opportunity of one month may be given, failing which the case may be proceeded ex parte and decided afresh. 2, The coverage has already become final. The case is remanded back for re-determination in the light of observations made above. If because of some emergency they cannot produce all the records on one day, one more opportunity of one month may be given, failing which the case may be proceeded ex parte and decided afresh. 2, The coverage has already become final. The case is remanded back for re-determination in the light of observations made above. " ( 4 ) IT is evident from the order that the appeal filed by petitioner has been partly allowed and case has been remanded to respondent No. 2 to take decision in the light of the observations made in the said order after affording an opportunity to the parties to produce evidence and in accordance with law. ( 5 ) THE petitioner is aggrieved only by last direction given by the appellate court to the effect that the question of coverage has already become final. ( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that respondent No. 1 was not right in making the said observation inasmuch as in appeal, question oi coverage as well as determination of amount both were raised. Respondent No. 1, thus, was not right in observing that the question of coverage has become final. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for contesting respondents submitted that order dated 2. 6. 1995 itself was appealable but no appeal against the said order was filed. The said order has thus become final. The petitioner, therefore, has got no right to challenge validity of said order by filing the present petition. ( 7 ) I have considered submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record. ( 8 ) SUB-SECTION (1) of Section 7a of the Act reads as under : "7a. Determination of moneys due from employers.-- (1) The Central Provident Fund commissioner, any Additional Central provident Fund Commissioner, any Deputy Provident fund Commissioner, any Regional Provident Fund Commissioner or any Assistant Provident fund Commissioner may, by order : (a) in a case where a dispute arises regarding the applicability of this Act to an establishment, decide such dispute ; and (b) determine the amount due from any employer under any provision of this Act, the Scheme or the Family Pension Scheme or the Insurance Scheme, as the case may be, and for any of the aforesaid purposes may conduct such inquiry as he may deem necessary. " ( 9 ) A reading of the aforesaid section reveals that it provides that the authority concerned may, by order in case where a dispute arises regarding the applicability of the Act to an establishment decide such dispute and may also determine the amount due from any employer under any provision of the Act, the Scheme or the Family Pension Scheme or the Insurance Scheme, as the case may be. There may be cases in which the question of coverage is decided in negative. In such cases, the question of determination of amount due from any employer under any provision of the Act or Scheme referred to in clause (b) will not arise. There may also be the cases in which both aforesaid questions may be decided by different orders on the same date or different dates. A party feeling aggrieved by an order of question of coverage of the establishment under the provisions of the Act has got a right to file an appeal under Section 7 (1) of the Act. In the present case, the question of coverage of establishment was duly decided by order dated 2. 6. 1995 against the petitioner, no appeal against the said order was filed by the petitioner. The appeal, as stated above, was filed only against the order dated 18. 2. 1998 whereby the amount due against the petitioner was determined by the Competent Authority, as it is evident from the memo appeal, a copy of which is contained in Annexure-12 to the writ petition. In the memo appeal, the petitioner might have taken ground regarding coverage also but the same cannot be deemed to be an appeal against the order dated 2. 6. 1995, as the validity of the said order was not challenged by the petitioner by filing an appeal under Section 7 (1) of the Act. Submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner to the contrary, therefore, cannot be accepted. In my opinion, respondent No. 1 was Justified in observing that the order dated 2. 6. 1995 relating to the coverage of establishment under the provisions of the Act has become final. ( 10 ) I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. No case for interference under article 226 of the Constitution of India, is made out. ( 11 ) WRIT petition fails and is dismissed in limine. .