JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsels. 2. The petitioner Industrial Unit is aggrieved by the order Annex.11 dated 27/12/2010 passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II Jodhpur and appellate order Annex.13 dated 8/9/2011 passed by Employees' Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal New Delhi, Camp at Jaipur holding that the petitioner Unit is covered by the provisions of EPF Act, 1952 and since number of employees found at the time of survey were more than 20, it was covered by the provisions of the said Act and was liable to pay provident fund contribution in respect of such 20 workman. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. K.K.Shah submitted that from the evidence produced before the authorities concerned, only 15 employees were regular employees of the petitioner Unit and remaining 5 persons were casual labours doing masonry work in the industrial unit and they could not fall within the definition of 'workman' for the purpose of determining whether the petitioner unit falls within the definition of 'establishment' as defined under Section 1(3)(a) of the said Act. He relied upon the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Bikaner Cold Storage Company, Bikaner v. Regional Provident Fund, Commissioner, Employees' Provident Fund, Raj in which the Full Bench of this Court held as under:- "Mere casual or temporary persons employed in an establishment, not connected with the normal or regular work of such establishment, cannot be counted for the purpose of determining as to whether the establishment was governed by the provisions of clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 1 of the Act. But it is also not necessary that only the workmen who are permanent employed and whose names are borne on the muster rolls of the factory should alone be considered for the aforesaid purpose. The number of persons, who are ordinarily regularly employed in the establishment, should be counted for the purposes of section (3)(a) of the Act, as distinct from merely temporary or casual employees engaged for some abnormal or emergent purpose other than the normal work of such establishment. The number of persons, who are ordinarily regularly employed in the establishment, should be counted for the purposes of section (3)(a) of the Act, as distinct from merely temporary or casual employees engaged for some abnormal or emergent purpose other than the normal work of such establishment. It shall naturally depend upon the facts of each case to find out as to whether the so called temporary workmen were regularly employed in connection with the normal and usual course of business of that establishment or they were engaged in the performance of some work which h ad no relation with the normal and regular course of business of the establishment. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, we find that out of 21 persons, who were said to have been employed on March 18, 1964 in the factory of the petitioner, 8 persons were merely temporary labourers employed for the purpose of carrying on the repairs of the factory building and it cannot be held that they were employed for the normal business of the establishment. Even if casual or temporary workers are engaged occasionally or intermittently to meet some temporary expediency or unusual or emergent situation, such temporary or casual workmen cannot be considered to be employees of the concern for the purpose s of section 1(3) (a) of the Act." 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the order Annex.11 dated 27/12/2010 passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commission-II in pursuance of remand order by the appellate Tribunal dated 15/2/2010 is also a non-speaking order and does not discuss the relevant evidence nor the Full Bench decision of this Court has been followed in the same. He also submitted that the appellate order of the learned Tribunal (Annex.13) dated 8/9/2011 summarily dismissing the appeal of the petitioner unit is also wholly a non-speaking order and vide para 9 it only says, "No inconsistency is noticed, Hence order, the appeal is dismissed." 5. Learned counsel for the respondent Department, Mr. U.S.Gehlot, however, opposed the writ petition. 6. A bare perusal of the impugned orders of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner as well as appellate Tribunal indicates that said orders are laconic and non-speaking orders and refer to certain judgments of other High Courts and Full Bench decision of this Court. Learned counsel for the respondent Department, Mr. U.S.Gehlot, however, opposed the writ petition. 6. A bare perusal of the impugned orders of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner as well as appellate Tribunal indicates that said orders are laconic and non-speaking orders and refer to certain judgments of other High Courts and Full Bench decision of this Court. Despite being referred in para 5 of the Tribunal's order, the same has neither been discussed nor followed for reasons best known to learned Tribunal. Unless temporary or casual labours are found to be regular employees of an industrial unit, the same cannot be included to make 20 workmen of an industrial unit for the purpose of determining whether the Establishment is covered under the definition given in Section 1(3) (a) of the Act. The Full Bench decision of this Court is categoric and is binding on the concerned authorities of the Provident Fund Department working in Rajasthan under the Central Provident Fund Act, 1952. The impugned orders are therefore, found to be non-speaking orders and do not meet the requirement of law and same deserve to the quashed. 7. Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed and setting aside the impugned order Annex.11 dated 27/12/2010 passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II, Jodhpur and order Annex.13 dated 8/9/2011 passed by Employees' Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal New Delhi, Camp at Jaipur, the matter is restored back to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II, Jodhpur, who may pass fresh speaking order after giving fresh opportunity of hearing to the petitioner unit and discussing the relevant evidence and case laws including the Full Bench decision of this Court. The petitioner's authorised representative may appear, in the first instance, before the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II, Jodhpur on 21/2/2012 and the said authority shall decide the case afresh as aforesaid within a period of three months thereafter.Petition allowed. *******