Judgment ( 1. ) PETITIONER seeks to challenge the order dated November 28, 2002, passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, whereby it is held that petitioner is liable to comply with the provisions of the Provident Fund Act for their institution. ( 2. ) HEARD Shri C. B. Patne, learned counsel for the petitioner on the question of admission. ( 3. ) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having perused the record of the case, I find no case to interfere. In other words, the petition has no life. ( 4. ) PETITIONER is a School. In an inquiry made by the sleuths of the Provident Fund Department, in relation to petitioner School, it was noticed that it has employed 20 persons in the instifution. Accordingly the petitioner is asked by the impugned orders to comply with the requirement of the Act by contributing payment of P. F. for the employees working in the institute. By this petition, the petitioner says that they do not have 20 employees but have less than 20 and hence the Act does not apply to their Institution. ( 5. ) THIS Court in its writ jurisdiction cannot hold an inquiry rather de novo one whether petitioner has ever employed 20 persons or more or less. It is for the authorities under the Act to hold an inquiry and then decide how many persons have been employed in petitioners Institute. It was done. A report of Inspector was called and relied upon. The petitioner was granted an opportunity to challenge the report by submitting their record. Thy did not do so, Accordingly, the report of Inspector which was made on the spot of Institute was relied upon being the best piece of evidence for holding that 20 employees are employed in petitioners Institute. ( 6. ) IT is a welfare legislation. It is always for the benefit of employees. It must be implemented by the petitioner by contributing towards P. F. for their employees. ( 7. ) PETITION being devoid of substance, is dismissed in limine.