JUDGMENT 1. - This intra-court appeal is directed against order of the ld. Single Judge dated 24/02/2014. 2. The brief facts, which can be noticed on perusal of the material available on record, are that a survey was conducted by the officers of the respondent at the business/factory premises of the appellant on 11/12/1997 and it was noticed that at the particular time when inspection was carried, 27 employees were found at the business premises and finding that the employees were in excess in the employment of the appellant, the case of the appellant was covered under the provisions of the Employees' Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short, 'the Act, 1952') whereas the claim of the appellant was that the inspection was carried at lunch hours and 17 employees working in the adjacent companies/factories came to the premises of the appellant who were in no way connected with the appellant and thus the appellant was not liable to be subjected to the jurisdiction of the Act, 1952 and thus the proceedings initiated were bad in law. Proceedings u/Sec. 7-A of the Act, 1952 were initiated to determine the dues and a show cause notice was issued on 04/03/1999 to deposit the provident fund and other dues as contained in the show cause notice dated 04/03/1999. It has been observed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner & officer Incharge in its order dated 10/10/2001 passed under Section 7-A of the Act, 1952 that as many as 15 opportunities were granted and the counsel initially appeared on behalf of the appellant but was unable to report the compliance even of the show cause notice. It is also observed by the officer that neither the partner nor any representative of the appellant attended the enquiry and thus the respondent was compelled to pass order on the basis of the material available on record. It has been further observed that despite innumerable opportunities afforded, the appellant was unable to prove as to how and in what manner 17 employees had come from the surrounding factories to take lunch at the factory premises of the appellant and thus, the order was passed fixing liability of the Employees' Provident Fund to be deposited along with interest, penal damages etc. 3. 3. The said order dated 10/10/2001 was assailed by the appellant before the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal (for short, 'Tribunal') and it was reiterated that the appellant never employed more than 10 persons and it was further reiterated that the other employees/workers of surrounding factories came to take food in the canteen being run by the appellant. The Tribunal, after analysing the facts and material, came to the conclusion that presence of 27 persons at the premises of the appellant is not disputed and employment of 10 persons is also not disputed by the appellant. However, the appellant, even before the Tribunal, failed to lead any evidence as to how and in what manner the other 17 persons had come to take food in the canteen being run by the appellant and accordingly dismissed the appeal of the appellant vide order dated 16/02/2010. 4. The matter was further assailed by the appellant before the ld. Single Judge, who vide order impugned dated 24/02/2014, upheld the order passed by the Tribunal. Hence this intra-court appeal. 5. Ld. counsel for the appellant contended that no proper and adequate opportunity was granted to the appellant and thus the order passed by the authority itself is unjust. He further contended that material was placed on record and it was conveyed that in so far as the appellant is concerned, it had only 9 employees in number i.e. below 10 and in this regard, the attendance register and other material was placed on record to justify that there were only 9 employees working under the establishment of the appellant. He further contended that the canteen itself could not cater the requirement of more than 10 persons and the inspecting team also found as a fact that the canteen was only meant for 10 persons and not more. He further contended that it was for the officers to convey as to who were the other 17 employees/workers found in the premises of the appellant and the respondents failed to bring on record the particulars of the employees/workers being in canteen of the appellant on 11/12/1997. He further contended that it was for the officers to convey as to who were the other 17 employees/workers found in the premises of the appellant and the respondents failed to bring on record the particulars of the employees/workers being in canteen of the appellant on 11/12/1997. He further contended that the claim of the appellant since beginning has been that during lunch hours employees of other adjacent factories/companies come and meet with the employees of the appellant and it happens that in the lunch time, which is also a free time for having food, tea etc, at that particular point of time, if workers of surrounding factories come, then merely because such workers of other establishments came to meet, it does not mean that they were regular employees of the appellant. He further contended that acceptable evidence in the shape of material placed on record has been discarded for no good reason and contended that the orders passed by the authorities deserve to be quashed and set aside. 6. We have considered the arguments advanced by counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned order and orders of the lower authorities. 7. In our view, the appeal is required to be dismissed for the reason that in the enquiry initiated u/Sec. 7-A of the Act, 1952, adequate and reasonable opportunity was granted to the appellant to bring on record its claim that who were the other 17 employees found at the particular time when inspection took place. Admittedly, 27 persons were found at the time when inspection took place. However, the claim of the appellant has been that under its employment only 9 employees were there and workers of surrounding/adjacent factories came over to meet the employees/workers of the appellant at the lunch time which can be said to be free time also but the appellant has not been able to lead any further evidence as to who were those persons rather the appellant wanted to shift the burden on the respondents, when the burden lies on the appellant as admittedly 27 persons were found in the canteen being run by the appellant. There is nothing on record which may justify that the canteen was meant merely for less than 10 people and nothing has been placed on record by the appellant to dislodge the finding recorded by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner & Officer Incharge in order dated 10/10/2001. Admittedly, a show cause notice was issued u/Sec. 7-A of the Act, 1952 and on perusal of the order dated 10/10/2001, it is noticed that as many as about 15 opportunities were granted and one Sh. KC Sharma, counsel appeared in the enquiry on behalf of the establishment initially but neither he complied with the instructions contained in the show cause notice dated 04/03/1999 nor attended the proceedings subsequent to the initial proceedings and it is observed in the said order that several notices were sent which were not complied with. 8. Even the Tribunal in its order dated 16/02/2010 has held that except claiming that 17 other employees of surrounding factories came in the canteen being run by the appellant, no material was placed to dislodge the claim of the inspecting team. The Tribunal analysed the matter elaborately dealing with all the contentions raised by the appellant. A review application was also filed which too came to be dismissed by the Tribunal holding that no mistake was noticed in the order and the order could not have been reviewed. The ld. Single Judge, in our view, has also correctly held in the impugned and has appreciated the material placed on record. 9. When adequate opportunity was granted by the authorities and no material was placed by the appellant even before the Tribunal, in our view as well, the admitted fact remains that at the time of inspection 27 persons were present inside the premises of the factory of the appellant. The presence of 27 persons at the premises has not been disputed by the appellant. Admittedly, when 27 employees have been found, it was for the appellant to lead evidence as to who the other 17 persons were rather than shifting the burden, as the burden lies on the appellant in this regard. The presence of 27 persons at the premises has not been disputed by the appellant. Admittedly, when 27 employees have been found, it was for the appellant to lead evidence as to who the other 17 persons were rather than shifting the burden, as the burden lies on the appellant in this regard. Since adequate opportunity was granted u/Sec. 7-A of the Act, 1952 which is a judicial proceeding and Section 7-A(3) prescribes that no order shall be made under sub-section (1), unless the employer concerned is given a reasonable opportunity of representing his case and it is noticed that as many as 15 opportunities were granted to the appellant but the appellant failed to appear and bring on record the material which it wished to be considered, we do not find any error being committed by the ld. Single Judge in passing the order impugned so as to call for interference of this Court in the instant intra-court appeal. 10. In view of that we have observed herein above, there is no merit in the instant intra-court appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed in limine.Appeal Dismissed. *******