JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2. The challenge in this intra-court appeal is the order of Single Bench dated 18`h April, 2012, whereby writ petition filed by petitioner/appellant assailing the order passed by Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, has been dismissed. 3. The petitioner establishment was covered under the provisions of Employees Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1952) provisionally w.e.f. 1.8.1997 vide coverage letter dated 12.3.1998. The establishment disputed the applicability of the Act of 1952, therefore, a notice under Section 7A of the Act of 1952 was issued to the establishment. The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner afforded full opportunity to petitioner and after hearing both the parties vide its order dated 16th September, 2002 held that petitioner establishment has rightly been covered under the provisions of the Act of 1952 w.e.f. 1st August, 1997. Being aggrieved with the order passed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, the appellant filed an appeal before the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, Camp Court at Jaipur, but the same was dismissed vide order dated 19th February, 2010. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a writ petition before Single Bench, which has been dismissed. Hence, petitioner has now preferred this intra-court appeal. 4. The main argument of learned counsel for the appellant before Single Bench and before this Court is that petitioner never employed 20 employees, therefore, petitioner establishment was wrongly covered under the provisions of the Act of 1952. He submitted that some employees were casual employees, which should not have been treated as employees of establishment. 5. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and examined the impugned order passed by Single Bench as well as Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner and Appellate Tribunal. 6. The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner in its order dated 16 1h September, 2002 under Section 7A of the Act of 1952 has observed that a list of employees working with the establishment as on 1.8.1997 indicating 20 employees duly signed by Manager of the establishment has been supplied by the establishment before coverage under the Act. 7. The question, "whether the establishment employed 20 employees as on 1.8.1997 or not", is purely a question of fact and there is a concurrent finding of fact in this regard recorded by Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner as well as Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal. 7. The question, "whether the establishment employed 20 employees as on 1.8.1997 or not", is purely a question of fact and there is a concurrent finding of fact in this regard recorded by Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner as well as Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal. Some of the employees are said to be casual employees, but they are liable to be included in the strength of employees for the purpose of coverage of the Act. This being a question of fact and the finding of fact in this regard is not open to challenge and cannot be interfered with by Single Bench while exercising powers under Article 226/227 of the Constitution. Learned Single Judge rightly dismissed the writ petition. The strength of employees i.e. 20 employees as on 1.8.1997 is based on written admission of petitioner establishment itself. The said admission was binding on the petitioner and was not subject to challenge. In these circumstances, we find that petitioner has rightly been covered under the provisions of the Act of 1952. The reasons assigned by learned Single Judge for dismissal of the writ petition are absolutely legal and justified and no interference in the same is called for by this Court in this intra-court appeal. 8. In view of above, we do not find any merit in this intra-court appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed in limine. Stay Application No.7195/2012 is also dismissed.Appeal dismissed in limine. *******