JUDGMENT : Shantanu Kemkar, J.:- This petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging the order dated 20-5-2004 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Madhya Pradesh, Indore (for short "7-A Authority") as also the orders dated 30-11-2010 (Annexure P-4) and 15-4-2011 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal (for short "the Tribunal"), New Delhi in ATA No. 491 (8) 2004 and in review petition respectively. 2. Briefly stated, on 21-9-1999, the Inspector of the Provident Fund Department visited the petitioner's establishment in order to examine the applicability of the Employees Provident Fund Act (for short "the Act") on it. After getting the necessary information, the report dated 24-9-1999 was submitted by him before the 7-A Authority, recommending for application of the Act on the petitioner's establishment. 3. The petitioner-establishment disputed the applicability of the Act on it, by raising a plea that it never employed 20 or more persons. It was stated by the petitioner that though in the letter dated 22-9-1999, list of 20 persons were given but it was clearly mentioned in it, that the names appearing at Serial Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 are not its employees, as they are not being paid any salary/emoluments by the petitioner. It was also stated that those persons are providing their services on their own Will as per their convenience to the petitioner's establishment, without any fixed working hours or days. 4. On raising such plea, the Inspector appointed under Section 13 of the Act again visited the establishment and examined the records produced by the petitioner viz., salary register, attendance register, cash book and balance sheet. On verification, he submitted a report to the 7-A Authority that the petitioner never employed 20 employees or more. He also reported that salary/wages register corroborates the entries in the cash book. As per his report, the employees' strength of the petitioner never reached more than 16, excluding the said four persons. He also confirmed that the names of the said four persons are also not appearing in the petitioner's records including salary and attendance register. He, therefore, observed that it is evidently clear unless four employees in dispute are treated as employees, the establishment cannot be covered under the provisions of Section 1 (3) of the Act. 5. He also confirmed that the names of the said four persons are also not appearing in the petitioner's records including salary and attendance register. He, therefore, observed that it is evidently clear unless four employees in dispute are treated as employees, the establishment cannot be covered under the provisions of Section 1 (3) of the Act. 5. After receiving said report, 7-A Authority vide order dated 20-5-2004 held that the aforesaid four persons are not actually employed in the establishment and are not taking salary and wages; hence are not employees. However, it held that this does not mean that the petitioner-establishment is not coverable under the Act as these persons are working for imparting education which is the main work of the establishment. Having observed so, the 7-A Authority held that the said four persons are to be treated as employees of the establishment for the purpose of applicability of the Act. 6. Feeling aggrieved by the said order dated 20-5-2004 (Annexure P-1) passed by the 7-A Authority, the petitioner filed the appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide interim order dated 2-2-2005 (Annexure P-3) while admitting the appeal for hearing observed thus :- "Perusal of impugned order shows that as per report of Enforcement Officer, only 16 employees were working and 4 persons, who were rendering voluntary service without any remuneration, were included as employees of the appellant. In these facts, the operation of the impugned order shall remain stayed till the disposal of appeal and APFC shall not determine the dues under Section 7-A (1) (b) of the EPF and MP Act, 1952." 7. Thereafter, vide final order dated 30-11-2010 (Annexure P-4), the Tribunal dismissed the appeal by holding that since the appellant has not produced any document to show its staff strength, and the report of the Inspector reveals that the appellant engaged 20 employees, the same has rightly been ordered to be covered under the Act. The Tribunal further observed that though it is asserted that no salary was paid to those four employees given in the list, no document was filed to that effect. The Tribunal held that since the four persons were also working in connection with the work of the establishment, the order of the 7-A Authority is justified. The Tribunal further observed that though it is asserted that no salary was paid to those four employees given in the list, no document was filed to that effect. The Tribunal held that since the four persons were also working in connection with the work of the establishment, the order of the 7-A Authority is justified. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner submitted a review petition (Annexure P-5) before the Tribunal, but the said review petition also suffered dismissal vide order dated 15-4-2011 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Tribunal. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this petition. 8. Heard Shri T.N. Singh, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Anand Pathak, learned Counsel for the respondent and perused the record. 9. We find that throughout the petitioner's case was that it never employed 20 or more persons. In the names appearing in the list dated 22-9-1999, out of 20 persons shown; the persons whose names are appearing at Nos. 1 to 4 are not being paid any salary or emoluments by the petitioner. These four persons are providing their service at their own Will as per their convenience and that their working hours or days are also not fixed. Thus, it is the case of the petitioner that four persons are not being employed and are not being its employees and as such, the Act Is not applicable on its establishment. 10. The aforesaid plea of the petitioner found support by the report of the Inspector based upon the verification of salary register, attendance register, cash book and balance sheet. The said report was considered by the 7-A Authority and it was accepted also as would be clear from the order of the 7-A Authority. The only reason, which the 7-A Authority assigned for the recording the finding that the Act is applicable on the petitioner was that since those four persons were working for the petitioner, may be on voluntary basis, they are to be treated as its employees. In the appeal against the said order of the 7-A Authority, the Tribunal by misreading the findings available on record and ignoring the report submitted by the Inspector, which was also affirmed by the 7-A Authority observed that to substantiate the plea that no salary was paid to those four persons; no document was filed by the petitioner. 11. In the appeal against the said order of the 7-A Authority, the Tribunal by misreading the findings available on record and ignoring the report submitted by the Inspector, which was also affirmed by the 7-A Authority observed that to substantiate the plea that no salary was paid to those four persons; no document was filed by the petitioner. 11. In our considered view, in view of Section 1 (3) (b) of the Act, which has been applied by the Provident Fund Department for holding the applicability of the Act on the petitioner, the Act applies to any establishment employing 20 or more persons or class of such establishments, which the Central Government may by notification in the Official Gazette specify in this behalf. Section 2 (f) of the Act defines the term 'employee', which means any person who is employed for wages in any kind of work, manual or otherwise, in or in connection with the work of an establishment, and who gets, his wages directly or indirectly from the employer, and includes any person- (i) employed by or through a contractor in or in connection with the work of the establishment; (ii) engaged as an apprentice, not being an apprentice engaged under the Apprentices Act, 1961 (52 of 1961), or under the standing orders of the establishment. 12. Considering the aforesaid, we are of the view that when there was a clear report in favour of the petitioner that those four persons are riot being paid salary and there was no rebuttal to the petitioner's case that they were not attending the petitioner establishment on regular basis on fixed day and timings, and were coming at their own Will voluntarily and when this fact was also established from various documents including attendance register, we fail to understand what more evidence was expected by the Tribunal for the petitioner to have led. 13. Having regard to the aforesaid, in our considered view, the impugned orders passed by the 7-A Authority and the Tribunal are unreasonable, perverse, based on misreading of evidence and also having been passed overlooking the material evidence available on record, the same are liable to be and are hereby quashed. 14. As a result, the petition is allowed with no orders as to costs.