JUDGMENT Aravind Kumar , J.—Though matter Is listed in Preliminary Hearing in 'B' Group by consent of learned Advocates it is taken up for final disposal. A Coverage memo was issued to petitioner on 15.9.2000 applying the provisions of Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, (hereinafter referred to as 'Act' for the sake of brevity) based on the findings of the Squad Officers who inspected the petitioner establishment on 6.9.2000 holding that employment strength in the petitioner establishment had crossed 19 from September 1998 onwards, A reply was given to the said coverage memo denying the same and hence proceedings under section 7A of the Act came to be initiated. Petitioner was notified and was represented by learned Advocate before second respondent herein, who conducted the proceedings under section 7A of the Act. Petitioner filed statement of objections, rejoinders, produced documents and affidavits to assert and claim that petitioner establishment never had strength of the employees in its establishment as contended by department and its strength did not exceed beyond 19. After adjudication, claim of the petitioner came to be rejected and petitioner establishment was brought under coverage and petitioner was called upon to pay the contributions relating to the period September 1998 to April 2001 in a total sum of Rs.1,91,77120. Aggrieved by this order petitioner preferred an appeal in ATA No. 709 (6)/2001 before the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as Tribunal). Said appeal was heard and came to be rejected by order dated 25.1.2007, Annexure-A. It is these two orders which have been impugned in the present writ petition. 2. Heard Sri C.K. Subramaniam, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri B.C. Prabhakar, for petitioner and Sri T.M. Adiga, teamed Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri Harikrishna S. Holla, for respondent Perused the impugned orders and the writ papers. 3. The contentions of Sri C.K. Subramaniam, learned Counsel appearing for petitioner are summarized as under: 1. At no point of time there were more than 19 employees in the petitioner establishment. 2. The list furnished by the petitioner establishment to the respondent authorities would clearly go to show that there are only 16 employees and same was not considered by respondents in its adjudication proceedings. 3. At no point of time there were more than 19 employees in the petitioner establishment. 2. The list furnished by the petitioner establishment to the respondent authorities would clearly go to show that there are only 16 employees and same was not considered by respondents in its adjudication proceedings. 3. Full and proper opportunity was not granted to petitioner in as much as petitioner was not permitted to cross-examine the witnesses of the Department who conducted the search. 4. Certain records which has been relied upon by the Department was forcefully got prepared by the Department Officials through the employee of petitioner establishment Sri Govind Rao, who was enemically disposed off towards petitioner establishment. On these grounds he seeks for setting aside the impugned orders and by way of alternate submission he prays that matter be remitted back to second respondent authority for adjudication afresh by affording full opportunity to petitioner. 4. Per contra, Sri T.M. Adiga, learned Counsel appearing for respondent having taken the Court through the order passed under section 7A by second respondent In extenso would support said order as affirmed by the Tribunal and seeks for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for the parties and on perusal of the impugned orders, it is noticed that provisions of the Act would get attracted to every establishment, which is a factory engaged in industry specified in Schedule I and in which 20 or more persons are employed as prescribed under clause (a) of Sub-section (3) of section 1 of the Act. Thus, keeping in mind the statutory mandate the facts on hand with reference to the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for petitioner are examined as under: Petitioner at the earlier point of time was said to be brought under the coverage by the Department on the ground that strength of its employees was more than 20 and clubbing the petitioner establishment along with M/s. Shine Bar and Restaurant and by taking account of combined employment strength of both units. This order of coverage came to be questioned by petitioner establishment in W.P. No. 20375/1994 and this Court by order dated 13.6.1997 set aside the order of coverage by allowing the writ petition and same has admittedly reached finality. This fact is not in dispute. This order of coverage came to be questioned by petitioner establishment in W.P. No. 20375/1994 and this Court by order dated 13.6.1997 set aside the order of coverage by allowing the writ petition and same has admittedly reached finality. This fact is not in dispute. Subsequently on 6.9.2000 the squad of respondent establishment conducted search of petitioner establishment and during the course of search found that the employees strength in petitioner establishment has exceeded 19 since September 1998. Having found so Department Officials seized records like muster register, wage slips pertaining to 21 employees disbursed from 4.9.2000 to 5.9.2000, attendance register of employees for the period September 1998 to 7 September 2000 which contained list of 21 employees and list of 27 employees prepared and submitted by Sri Govind Rao, who has said to be employee/manager/office assistant and who was said to be working since past 16 years in petitioner establishment. By taking into consideration the said records and arguments advanced by the teamed Counsel for petitioner establishment before second respondent in 7A proceedings, following points were formulated for its consideration: 1. Whether the records seized by the department are true records of establishment or false and fabricated as alleged by the employer. 2. Whether Sri Govind Rao is the manager of the establishment. 3. Whether the list of employees submitted by the manager was obtained under coercion or under influence. All the points came to be answered against the petitioner establishment. At this juncture itself, it would be appropriate to note the contention raised by the learned Counsel for petitioner namely, that at no point of time the strength of employees in petitioner establishment exceeded 19. As noted hereinabove under section 1(3A) of the Act any establishment engaged in any industry specified in Schedule 1, would be brought within the coverage of the Act, if the strength of its employees exceeds 20. In instant case the records seized by the Department like muster register of the employees for the period September 1998 to September 2000, wage slips, attendance register (referred to supra) would clearly go to show that at no point of time the strength of employees in the petitioner establishment was less than 20. Said records which admittedly is maintained by the petitioner establishment itself would dearly demonstrate that the strength of employees was more than 20. No contra evidence was tendered by the establishment. 6. Said records which admittedly is maintained by the petitioner establishment itself would dearly demonstrate that the strength of employees was more than 20. No contra evidence was tendered by the establishment. 6. One of the contentions raised by petitioner second respondent authority as well as before this Court was records relied upon by the department to cover the establishment were fabricated, got prepared by manipulation through Sri. Govind Rao, an employee of the petitioner establishment since he had axe to grind against petitioner establishment, in as much as he had misappropriated certain amounts in the petitioner establishment and petitioner establishment had initiated action against him and as such records produced by him are not to be believed. The fact that said Sri Govind Rao continued to discharge his duties in the petitioner establishment even thereafter is not in dispute. In fact said Sri Govind Rao himself has admitted in his affidavit filed before second respondent that records relied upon by the Department was in fact seized by the Department on the date of their inspection and as such the contention of the petitioner that he was having animosity against the petitioner establishment is not only a afterthought but a ground raised to somehow wriggle out from remaining outside the coverage of the Act as rightly observed by second respondent authority, A man who is alleged to have misappropriated huge funds of petitioner establishment and cheated his employer cannot be believed to have continued to discharge his work in the same establishment or it cannot be accepted by no stretch of imagination that such an employee who is said to have misappropriated, has been retained by the petitioner establishment. Said Sri Govind Rao in his affidavit filed in 7A proceedings state that he was forced by the Departmental Officials to sign the statement recorded by them and the list obtained by the Department at the time of conducting search was under coercion. Such a plea is to be rejected outright for the simple reason that in the event he had any animosity against the petitioner establishment he would not have given such a statement against the Officials of the Department. Such a plea is to be rejected outright for the simple reason that in the event he had any animosity against the petitioner establishment he would not have given such a statement against the Officials of the Department. This inconsistency in his statement of petitioner itself establishes the fact that the said Sri Govind Rao is a stooge witness on behalf of petitioner whose evidence is not only to be seen with utmost circumspection but also to be rejected out rightly as it is contrary to records. 7. Even with regard to the contention that the records have been fabricated or concocted by the department has been rightly rejected by the respondent since-the managing partner vide his letter dated 14.11.2000 has categorically admitted that all the records seized by the Department during search conducted on 6.9.2000 belonged to the petitioner establishment. In fact the text of said letter which has been extracted by the respondent in his order dated 16.10.2001. Annexure-B itself which discloses such admission having been made. 8. Question of lack of opportunity to petitioner to put up its defence before respondent authority also cannot be accepted. The impugned order as also the Annexures appended to the writ petition it would clearly go to show that full opportunity was given to the petitioner establishment at all stages. The main grievance is that petitioner establishment was not permitted to cross-examine the officials who had conducted the search of the petitioner establishment on 6.9.2000. The impugned order does not disclose that the petitioner establishment has been covered based on the statement of any of Officials who conducted search but such coverage has been made based on the entries found in the registers seized during the course of said search. Thus, burden was on the petitioner establishment to disprove that contents found in the registers, pay slips, etc., referred to supra are contrary to facts. Records disclose that when respondent called upon the petitioner establishment to produce the ledger, cash register, etc., for reasons best known it was not produced and same was withheld. This itself clearly goes to show that petitioner establishment though had these document in its custody it did not produce the same to demonstrate that the entries found in said registers are erroneous or incorrect. This itself clearly goes to show that petitioner establishment though had these document in its custody it did not produce the same to demonstrate that the entries found in said registers are erroneous or incorrect. On the other hand such entries found in the register maintained during the course of the business are to be presumed as correct entries Hence, when the Department itself has not relit upon the statements of its Officials and impugned order having been passed based solely on the entries found in the registers, question of lack of opportunity being extended to petitioner and consequently resulting violation of principles of natural justice does not arise at all. Hence, said contentions/of the learned Counsel for petitioner also stands rejected. 9. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, I pass the following: ORDER (i) Writ petition is hereby dismissed with costs. (ii) Order of second respondent dated 16.10.2001 at Annexure-B as affirmed by the Appellate Tribunal in ATA No. 709 (6)/2001 dated 25.1.2007 Annexure-A is hereby affirmed. (iii) Petitioner shall pay second respondent a sum of Rs.5,000 as costs, (iv) Ordered accordingly.