Judgment C.K.Prasad and Ravi Ranjan JJ. 1. An order dated November 24, 1995 was passed by the Company Judge winding up Rohtas Industries Limited. It is under liquidation and the official liquidator has been appointed as a liquidator. Few of the employees have been retained to assist the official liquidator in discharge of his duties. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner gave notice to the official lquidator to make deductions of the workers share from their salary, contribute his share and deposit the same with the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner under the provisions of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act. The official liquidator brought the aforesaid fact to the notice of the Company Judge. It held that the provisions of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act shall not be applicable and the Official Liquidator is not liable to make contribution under the said Act. 2. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated December 23, 1998, passed by the Company Judge in Company Petition No. 3/1984, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner has preferred this appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. 3. However, when the matter is taken up, Mr. R.S. Pradhan, appearing on behalf of the appellant prays for converting this appeal into an appeal under Section 483 of the Companies Act. 4. We have proceeded to hear this appeal as to be an appeal under Section 483 of the Companies Act. 5. Mr. Pradhan submits that the appointment of an employee by the official liquidator of a company under liquidation, makes the status of the office of official Liquidator as that of the establishment, and the official liquidator as a employer. Hence, he is obliged to make deduction from the salary of the employees, contribute its share and deposit the same under the provisions of Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act. 6. We do not find any substance in the submission of Mr. Pradhan. It is not in dispute that the different units of the Company have been out of operation and remain closed since 1984. They are not running at present. The establishment is in the process or winding up, and is not engaged in any industrial activity specified in Schedule (1) nor specially notified under Section 1 (3)(b) of the Act. Pradhan. It is not in dispute that the different units of the Company have been out of operation and remain closed since 1984. They are not running at present. The establishment is in the process or winding up, and is not engaged in any industrial activity specified in Schedule (1) nor specially notified under Section 1 (3)(b) of the Act. In that view of the matter, we are entirely in agreement with the learned single Judge that the provisions of the Act shall not be applicable and the official liquidator is not liable to make contribution under the Act. 7. In the result, we do not find any merit in this appeal. Hence, it is dismissed accordingly but without any order as to costs.