JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 1.3.2011 (Annex-10) passed by Employees' Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi affirming the order dated 25.11.2008 (Annex-9) passed by the Assistant PF Commissioner (Compliance), Udaipur under Section 7-A of the Employees' Provident Fund and Misc. Provisions Act, 1952 (for short, hereinafter referred to as "Act of 1952"). 2. By the said order under Section 7-A of the Act of 1952, the competent authority, namely, Assistant PF Commissioner held that on the date of survey conducted on the business place of the petitioner on 30.10.2001, 21 employees were found to be working the said establishment of the petitioner. The said survey report was duly signed by the authorised signatory of the petitioner establishment and therefore, the demand of provident fund dues of Rs. 11,97,777/- was made against the petitioner under Section 7-A of the Act of 1952 vide order dated 10.12.2008 for the period in question. 3. Being aggrieved of the said order under Section 7-A of the Act of 1952 the petitioner filed further appeal before the Employees' Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in accordance with provisions of Section 7-1 of the said Act. However, the learned appellate Tribunal has also rejected the said appeal of the petitioner affirming the order dated 25U1.2008 passed by the learned Assistant PF Commissioner, Udaipur, which was communicated to the petitioner vide Annex-9 dated 10.12.2008. 4. learned counsel for the petitioner establishment Mr. P.D. Bohra urged that reasonable opportunities to establish the case of the petitioner that number of employees was less than 20 at the relevant point of time, was not given to the petitioner; and even though the petitioner had filed letter (Annex-8) dated 11.9.2007 requesting the said Assistant Commissioner, to summon 7 alleged employees of the petitioner-establishment included in the aforesaid list of 21 employees, the said authority failed to summon them even though the said authority has power of Civil Courts conferred upon it under Section 7-A (2) of the Act of 1952. He, further submitted that the petitioner was prevented by sufficient cause in not being able to establish his case before the Assessing Authority and, therefore, demand of provident fund contributions treating the petitioner-establishment as covered under the provisions of the said Act, cannot be sustained. 5. On the other hand, Mr. He, further submitted that the petitioner was prevented by sufficient cause in not being able to establish his case before the Assessing Authority and, therefore, demand of provident fund contributions treating the petitioner-establishment as covered under the provisions of the said Act, cannot be sustained. 5. On the other hand, Mr. U.S. Gehlot, learned counsel for the respondent - PF Department supporting the impugned orders submitted that findings of facts arrived at by the two authorities below cannot be said to be perverse and since the petitioner failed to adduce evidence by producing the relevant record like attendance register etc. before the said authority to show that number of employees was less than 20, coverage of petitioner by the said Act and details of PF contribution upheld by the appellate Tribunal cannot be now challenged as the said findings of the fact cannot be said to be perverse in any manner. 6. However heard learned counsels for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Asst. Commissioner has passed the impugned order dated 25.11.2008 (Annex-8) giving the details of all the dates on which the opportunities of hearing were given to the petitioner; and even though some of the records were produced by the petitioner, like attendance register for the period of April, 1999 to August, 2001, still the balance sheets for the assessment years 1998-99 and 1999-2000 were not produced. The attendance register for the period of April 1999 to November. 2005 demanded for this, the date was given on 30.7.2007, however, Sh. Agarwal, Director of petitioner-establishment attended the enquiry on 30.7.2007, however produced copies of wages and salary register for the period April 2004 to November 2005 only. Thereafter, on scrutiny of the salary register, it was observed that signatures of the employees have not been obtained on revenue stamp and payments of wages were made by cash. 7. As far as request of summoning of the aforesaid 7 employees is concerned, the letter dated 11.9.2007 has been dealt with by the adjudicating authority in the same para on page 3 of the impugned order in the following terms. ".... Sh. Agarwal, Director attended the inquiry' on 11.9.2007 and submitted a letter dated 11.9.2007 seeking three months time to produce the relevant records. He further requested to call 7 (seven) employees who were shown in the list of employees. ".... Sh. Agarwal, Director attended the inquiry' on 11.9.2007 and submitted a letter dated 11.9.2007 seeking three months time to produce the relevant records. He further requested to call 7 (seven) employees who were shown in the list of employees. The Assessing Officer stated that it is not required for department to examine employees of the establishment at this stage and advised Sh. Agarwal to ensure that the relevant record is produced on the next date of hearing fixed for 6.11.2007." 8. Thereafter also on various dates, opportunities were given to the petitioner-establishment, but it failed to avail the same and did not produce the complete record and, ultimately drawing the adverse inference on the basis of survey report initially made by the concerned authorities of the Department, adjudicating authority came to the conclusion that number of employees exceeded the cut off limit of 20 and, hence, the petitioner-establishment was covered by the provisions of the said Act. 9. Learned appellate Tribunal has also upheld the said demand while dismissing the appeal of the petitioner on the same grounds holding therein that burden of establishing the numbers of employees was below the minimum cut off number of 20, was on the petitioner-establishment itself, however, he failed in this regard therefore, the petitioner was liable to be covered by the provisions of the Act of 1952 in view of the two judgments discussed in the order dated 1.3.2011 by the learned appellate Tribunal, viz. of Delhi High Court in the case of M/s Saraswati Construction Company v. Central Board of Trustees reported in 2010 LLR 684 and in the case of M/s H.C. Narula v. Regional PF Commissioner reported in 2003 Vol. 11 LLJ 1131 . 10. Upon perusal of the impugned orders, this Court is satisfied that there is neither breach of principles of natural justice in the present case nor it can be said that adjudicating authority was bound to summon the seven employees on the request by the petitioner in the present case vide letter Annex-8 dated 11.9.2007. 11 LLJ 1131 . 10. Upon perusal of the impugned orders, this Court is satisfied that there is neither breach of principles of natural justice in the present case nor it can be said that adjudicating authority was bound to summon the seven employees on the request by the petitioner in the present case vide letter Annex-8 dated 11.9.2007. since, the onus is on the petitioner-establishment to satisfy the authority concerned that number of employees was below the minimum cut off number of 20, however, having failed in the same, the findings of facts arrived at by the two finding authorities below, are not liable to be interfered with in the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 11. Consequently, the present writ petition is found to be devoid of merit and same is accordingly dismissed. No costs.Writ petition dismissed. *******