Judgment ( 1. ) THE petitioner seeks relief in the instant writ petition to quash the order dated March 22, 2000 Annexure-P/12 and letter dated April 10, 2000 Annexure-P/13. ( 2. ) AS per order Annexure-P/12 the Regional Commissioner has passed an order on the basis of submission of establishment representative that all the employees listed in the letter dated October 4, 1997 are ex-servicemen, are in receipt of pension benefits under the Government Rules, such establishments have been exempted from operation of Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952; in the light of the notification dated February 8, 1995, an order was passed on March 22, 2000 to decode the establishment in order to exempt it from the purview of the Act with effect from March 1, 2000. Management was advised to submit the claim form for the payment from the office and implementation of the Act will be ceased from March 1, 2000. ( 3. ) A letter Annexure-P/13 dated April 10, 2000 was issued by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Jabalpur, intimating the factum of decoding the establishment, and exempting it from the purview of the Act and closure of account No. 9050 w. e. f. March 1, 2000 and it was intimated at the same time that the provident fund of the employees may be deducted by the principal employer and be sent to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and not to use Code Number MP 9050. ( 4. ) PETITIONER is challenging communication P/13 also on the ground that once exemption was granted and order was passed decoding the petitioner as it was employing only ex-servicemen and its employees provident fund could not be ordered to be deducted. It is further the case of the petitioner that the petitioners code number should not have been withdrawn as it may require the service of such persons who are not ex-servicemen and in case they were employed on casual basis. Thus, the decision of decoding P/12 is bad in law as well as communication P/13. Notification dated February 8, 1995 relating to exemption of establishment is quoted below: "5. 0. . . . . . . . . Thus, the decision of decoding P/12 is bad in law as well as communication P/13. Notification dated February 8, 1995 relating to exemption of establishment is quoted below: "5. 0. . . . . . . . . In exercise of the powers conferred by Subsection (2) of Section 16 of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952), the Central Government, being of opinion that, having regard to the circumstances of certain establishments which are employing only ex-servicemen who are in receipt of pension benefits as admissible under the Government rules, it is necessary and expedient so to do, hereby exempts the said class of establishments from the operation of the said Act for a period of five years with effect from the date of publication of this notification in the Official Gazette of India. " ( 5. ) IN the return filed by the respondents it is contended that during the course of inspection on June 18, 1999, it was found that the establishment was not extending the provident fund benefits to 30 employees deployed in Central Ware Housing Corporation. On the plea the principal employer did not pay the employers contribution. Therefore, the inquiry under Section 7-A of the Act was initiated and finally it was observed that at the time of coverage of the establishment under the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, all the 23 employees were ex-servicemen, in receipt of pension from the Government, therefore, the code number for establishment was unwarranted under the Act, 1952, as per notification dated February 8, 1995, whereby the establishment employing "only ex-servicemen" who are in receipt of pension, have been excluded/exempted from the operation of the said Act for a period of five years from the date of notification, accordingly the respondent excluded the establishment from the purview of the Act vide order dated March 22, 2000. It is the further case set up, that the notification dated February 8, 1995 exempt the establishment as a whole from the operation of the Act and not a class of employees. It is the further case set up, that the notification dated February 8, 1995 exempt the establishment as a whole from the operation of the Act and not a class of employees. Whereas taking a plea of the said notification the establishment did not extend the benefit of the Act, 1952 to some of its employees who did not fall under the fold of the said notification merely because no reimbursement of P. F. contribution was being received by it from the establishments, where the employees were deployed on contract basis. This act of the petitioner is not legally correct and permissible under the Act. The review application which was filed by the petitioner was rightly rejected. The petitioner cannot be permitted to enroll a class of employee and keep away another set of employees from the benefits of P. F. while holding independent code number. Respondents pray for a direction to the petitioner to deposit the P. F. contribution in respect of eligible employees through its principal employer in the light of notification dated February 8, 1995 as the petitioner establishment is not liable for coverage independently under the Act. ( 6. ) REJOINDER has been filed by the petitioner. It is alleged that the petitioner establishment is covered under the provisions of the Act, but, the employees who were exempted under Section 16 (2) of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, as they were in receipt of pension benefit as admissible under the Government Rules, could not be further asked to be enrolled as P. F. subscribers through another employer for whom work has been undertaken by the petitioner establishment. Section 7-A does not empower the respondent to decode an establishment. ( 7. ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that orders P/12 and P/13 are contradictory. The review which was filed ought to have been allowed. Appeal was also preferred, which was dismissed by the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal on November 7, 2002 on the ground of maintainability. ( 8. ) LEARNED counsel for the respondents submits that the benefit of the notification dated February 8, 1995 is applicable to the establishments which are employing only ex-servicemen, who are in receipt of pension benefit. ( 9. ( 8. ) LEARNED counsel for the respondents submits that the benefit of the notification dated February 8, 1995 is applicable to the establishments which are employing only ex-servicemen, who are in receipt of pension benefit. ( 9. ) AFTER hearing learned counsel for the parties, perusing the documents, I am of the opinion that the benefit of the notification dated February 8, 1995 is available to certain establishments who are employing only ex-servicemen, who are in receipt of pension benefit as admissible under the Government Rules. In case the petitioner was employing only ex-servicemen it cannot be said to be aggrieved by Annexure-P/12 as there was no necessity of having any code number because of the exemption carved out in the notification dated February 8, 1995. In such circumstances order Annexure-P/13 could not be issued with respect to ex-servicemen, who are not liable to pay owing to exemptions in case the petitioner was employing only those persons in the establishment. ( 10. ) HOWEVER, it appears that there may be some casual labourers who were not ex-servicemen which may have been employed time to time by the petitioner as pointed out by the respondents in their return. As such it is a fit case to direct the respondent to reconsider the entire matter afresh and to pass an order whether the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the notification in case it is employing such other persons who are not ex-servicemen and whether on the facts which may be found established in enquiry, it is required to have a code number. It is also adverted to whether code number is required to be withdrawn at all, it be also adverted to whether benefit of notification is still available, if not from which date and what is its legal consequence. The employees who arc not ex-servicemen cannot be made to suffer if they were entitled to protection of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, they have to be accorded the benefit. ( 11. ) LET the matter be re-examined by the respondent and fresh order be passed in accordance with law within two months from the date of first appearance of the parties. Petitioner is directed to appear before the respondent on March 28, 2002.