Judgment Akil Kureshi, J. This appeal is filed by the original petitioner challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 16.7.2010 dismissing the writ petition. Brief facts are that the appellant is engaged in fabrication and other engineering related works which it carries out by way of job work for various companies. It appears that the appellant applied for registration under the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. Such registration was granted with effect from 1.10.2001. An inquiry under the said Act was carried out resulting into proceedings under section 7A of the Act. The Provident Fund authorities held a belief that the appellant had not deposited the provident fund dues of the employees. The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, after giving full opportunity to the appellant passed an order dated 27.2.2007 raising a demand of Rs.24,84,600/- towards provident fund and Rs.11,79,191/- towards interest under section 7Q of the Act. Aggrieved by the order of the competent authority, the appellant preferred appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal while dismissing the appeal observed that though the appellant was employing 50 to 60 persons, he was making contribution towards provident fund only for 20 employees. This was established and ascertained with reference to the books of accounts, wage registers and vouchers which were produced by the appellant itself. The genuineness of these documents was thus not in doubt. On such basis, the appeal was dismissed by the order dated 3rd May 2010. The appellant thereupon filed writ petition before the High Court. The learned Single Judge dismissed the same by the impugned judgment. Hence this Letters Patent Appeal. Learned counsel Shri Savani for the appellant mainly contended that for want of provident fund registration, the appellant was depositing the provident fund contributions of the employees through the principal companies for whom job work was being done. The appellant had produced certificates of Nirma Limited and GHCL to this effect. The provident fund authorities completely ignored this important aspect of the matter. On the other hand, Ms. Shailaja for the Department opposed the appeal contending that no details of the deposit of provident fund dues of the employees was produced. Mere certificate by the companies would not be sufficient. In any case, to the extent such material was available, the appellant has not been saddled with the additional liability. On the other hand, Ms. Shailaja for the Department opposed the appeal contending that no details of the deposit of provident fund dues of the employees was produced. Mere certificate by the companies would not be sufficient. In any case, to the extent such material was available, the appellant has not been saddled with the additional liability. In this respect, she relied on the additional affidavit dated 14th September 2011 filed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner in which it is stated, inter alia, that while quantifying the unpaid dues of the appellant, to the extent the employees worked for M/s. Nirma Limited, the same has not been taken into consideration. However, as regards other employers, such as M/s. Shri Digvijay Cement Ltd., Petron, Gujarat Siddhi Cement Ltd., Saurashtra Chemicals Ltd, and GHCL are concerned, the appellant has not produced any evidence about the payment of dues. That is how the amount of Rs.24,84,600/- was quantified. Having thus heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the documents on record, we do not see any reason to interfere. Firstly, the competent authority under the said Act and the Tribunal have concurrently come to the conclusion that the appellant had not deducted and deposited the provident fund dues of various employees. His sole defence was that in absence of a code number which would be available only upon registration being granted, the appellant had made such contributions through the principal employers whose job work was being undertaken. In this respect, the appellant could produce some evidence only in respect of Nirma Limited. Though the appellant admittedly had undertaken job work for and on behalf of various other companies, no additional material was produced concerning such other entities. Even otherwise, it is difficult to appreciate how the appellant would rotate payment of its employees on the basis of principal companies for whom the job work was being undertaken. The Tribunal made pertinent observation that the assessment of unpaid dues was on the basis of admitted documents produced by the appellant, such as, wage register and attendance register, etc. Through such documents, it was established that the appellant was employing on an average 50 to 60 persons. It was also established that he was contributing towards provident fund only for 20 of them. It was on this basis that the appellant’s dues were worked out. Through such documents, it was established that the appellant was employing on an average 50 to 60 persons. It was also established that he was contributing towards provident fund only for 20 of them. It was on this basis that the appellant’s dues were worked out. The learned Single Judge noted that the appellant could not dislodge the computation made by the authorities. Even the Division Bench, during the pendency of this appeal had granted several opportunities to the appellant to produce documents of having paid the full provident fund dues of the employees, no additional documents were produced. Under the circumstances, the LPA is dismissed.