JUDGMENT : S.N. Prasad, J. Notice dated 19.1.1998 (Annexure-1), communication dated 20.03.1999 (Annexure-2), the order passed on 30th November, 1998 under Section 7A of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (Annexure-9) and the order passed by the E.P.F. Appellate Tribunal in Case No. ATA/10(5)/99 (Annexure-10) are under challenge and the order passed under Section 7A on 27.08.2001 (Annexure-13) is under challenge. 2. The petitioner who is Regional Engineering College, Rourkela established in the year 1961 is a joint undertaking of the Central Government and State Government and from the date of its establishment it has its own bye-laws relating to the recruitment of staff, travel expenses of the Board of Members and power and functions of the authorities of the College, Ministerial Service(method of recruitment) Rules, Employees Conduct Rules, Leave Rules, Retirement benefits (C.P.F./Pension) Rules, Medical Attendance Rules and allotment of Residential accommodation Rules which have been framed by the Board of Governors of the College. The expenses of the College are completely being provided by the Central Government and State Government jointly as such the College has no source of income of its own. 3. A notice has been issued from the office of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner on 19.01.1998 regarding applicability of the Employees and Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act 1952”) and the Scheme framed thereunder to the College and demanding the EPF and Employees Deposit Linked Insurance dues for 153 persons who have been employed in the Mess from the month of March, 1982, the petitioner has given reply questioning the jurisdiction of the R.P.F. Commissioner and also stated therein that these 153 employees working in the Mess, are not the employees of the College in question. But without taking into consideration, the reply submitted by the petitioner the enquiry proceeding has been initiated and the Act has been made applicable vide order passed in this regard by the competent authority on 30th November, 1998 (Annexure-9), being aggrieved the petitioner has preferred writ petition being OJC No.18060 of 1998 but this Court while disposing the writ petition has permitted the petitioner to file an appeal with a direction to the appellate Tribunal to decide the appeal in accordance with law thereafter an appeal was preferred which was also rejected and when the matter was pending before the appellate Tribunal, the dues has been quantified and an order has been passed fixing liability upon the petitioner under Section 7A of the Act, 1952 vide order passed in this regard on 27.08.2001. 4. The petitioner being aggrieved with the order passed under Section 7A and under Section 7I of the Act 1952 is before this Court by this writ petition on the ground that the employees working in the Mess are not the employees of the College rather they have been engaged by the students on their own expenses and as such these employees are not coming under the purview of the definition of the employee, hence the order passed under Section 7A of the Act, 1952 making the provision of the Act applicable so far as these reference of the employees are concerned is absolutely without application of mind. In order to demonstrate this arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner has produced the prospectus of the College in question and has submitted that there is no own source of income lying with the College rather the College is being funded jointly by the Central Government and the State Government and the persons working in the Mess are not the employees of the College in question as such they are not liable to deposit the statutory amount in their favour. 5. While on the other hand, the opposite parties have put their appearance and contested the case by filing a detail counter affidavit and on the basis of the statement made therein, learned senior counsel representing the opposite parties has submitted that the employees working in the mess are coming under the definition of the employee under Section 2(f) of the Act, 1952. Learned senior counsel has argued on the basis of various annexure which are the decision taken by the Superintendent regarding the transfer, grant of annual increment, the power of appointment vested upon the Principal and the Registrar of the College, wage structure is to be looked into by the Committee constituted by the order of the Principal of the College, the advertisement has been published in the seal and signature of the Registrar for appointing the Ward Boys of the Halls and also demonstrated the arguments taking reliance of the order passed by the Principal of the Regional Engineering College, Durgapur wherein the mess employees are being paid the benefit of dearness allowance. By placing reliance upon the documents of Regional Engineering College, Durgapur, it has been submitted that the petitioner-college is at the same footing as that of Regional Engineering College, Durgapur as such the mess employees cannot be said to be not the employees of the College in question. 6. Moreover, it has been submitted that the employees working in the establishment who have been paid directly or indirectly will be said to be an employee but here in this case the mess employees are directly under the control of the College as such the provision of the Act 1952 is applicable and the authorities in exercise of power conferred under Section 7A has passed a well reasoned order on the basis of various documents before them which has been scrutinised by the appellate and thereafter the amount has been quantified to be deposited in respect of accounts of the workmen, hence there is no illegality. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted in response that the mess employees are not the employees of the College as because they have preferred a separate writ petition being OJC No.221 of 1997 praying therein regularisation of their service in the College. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner when they themselves have prayed for regularisation, it would mean that they are not the employees of the College in question. 8. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner when they themselves have prayed for regularisation, it would mean that they are not the employees of the College in question. 8. But this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner has been refuted by the learned counsel for the opposite parties submitting that it has got no substance in view of the fact that that whether any employee in regular capacity or work-charged or DLR or NMR after rendering their service for an Institute, he will be said to be an employee in view of the definition of employee under Section 2(f) of the Act 1952. 9. It has been contended that if there is concurrent finding of the authorities based upon relevant records as such this Court may not interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution of India sitting as an appellate court. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. 10. The whole case of the petitioner regarding the applicability of the Act 1952 with respect to the petitioner-establishment in respect of the Mess workers working in the Mess of the College in question. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued the case vehemently on this ground and has submitted that the Act itself is not applicable in view of the fact that the mess employees are not the employees of the petitioner-College in question as such there is no question of applicability of the Act 1952, hence the order passed by the authority making the Act applicable with respect to mess workers working in the College is absolutely without application of mind. In order to appreciate his argument, it needs to see the relevant provision of the employee as has been defined under Section 2(f) of the Act 1952, which is being reproduced herein below:- Section 2(f) “employee” 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, or under the standing orders of the establishment.” From perusal of the definition, it is evident that any worker working in the establishment and being paid directly or indirectly by the establishment and working for the establishment will be said to be an employee. 12. 12. From perusal of the various documents annexed by the opposite parties in the counter affidavit i.e., the order dated 18th June, 1988 (Annexure-A/2) which is the order passed by the Superintendent Hostel No.3, R.E. College, Rourkela for relieving Mess Manager, the order dated 28.08.1995 (Annexure-B/2) which is an office order issued from the office of the Warden Halls of Residence, R.E. College, Rourkela allowing the mess workers to draw their annual increment, the office order dated 10.04.1996 which is an order of engagement having been passed by the Registrar on the sanction having been granted by the Principal, communication dated 4.3.1996 by which Committee has been constituted to look into the wage structure of Hall staff such Ward Boys and Mess Servants and an advertisement dated 13.10.1995 issued by the Registrar inviting applications for Ward Boys of Halls and also relied upon an order issued by the R.E. College, Durgapur which has having the same status as that of the petitioner-College dated 2.9.1995 showing the grant of Dearness Allowance payable to the Mess employees which reveals that there is direct control over the Mess employees of the College in question as such the arguments advanced on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner is having no force, the authorities in exercise of power under Section 7A of the Act 1952 after taking into considerations all these documents have passed an order after providing an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner on 30.11.1998 holding therein that the Act is applicable with respect to the Mess employees working in the College. 13. On perusal of the order passed under Section 7A (Annexure-9), it would be evident that the authorities have taken note of the relieve order of the Mess Manager and other documents, the appellate authority has also taken into consideration these documents, finding given by the authority in exercise of power conferred under Section 7A and thereafter dismissed the appeal holding therein that there exists relationship of the employer and the employee so far as the Mess employees working in the College is concerned as such the Act 1952 is applicable with respect to them. Thereafter, the authorities have imposed liability in exercise of power under Section 7A of the Act 1952. 14. There is no dispute that the Employees Provident Fund Act is a beneficial piece of legislation. Thereafter, the authorities have imposed liability in exercise of power under Section 7A of the Act 1952. 14. There is no dispute that the Employees Provident Fund Act is a beneficial piece of legislation. It was passed with an object of making some provisions for the future of the industrial worker after his retirement or for his dependents in the case of his early death. The Parliamentarian, after considering various financial and administrative difficulties in old and survival pension’s schemes and gratuity schemes, agreed to introduce the institution of contributory fund schemes in which, both the worker and the employer would contribute. Provident fund scheme was considered as a means to encourage the stabilization of a steady labour force in industrial centre. The Parliamentarians were well aware of the fact that with industrial growth, although, the big employers had introduced the scheme of provident fund for the welfare of their workers, but all these schemes until then were private and voluntary and the workers of the small employers remain deprived of the benefits which were provided by big employers with an object to provide for compulsory establishment of provident fund by every employer in the industrial concerns for the betterment of the employee, the EPF Act was enacted. 15. Thus, from perusal of the material available on record, it would be evident that the Mess workers working in the Mess of the College in question is giving service to the College Hostel being a important part since the College is a residential College and they cannot be deprived from the benefit of the Act 1952. 16. The authority empowered under the Act 1952 after taking into consideration the relevant documents and the facts placed before him has passed well reasoned order which has been affirmed by the appellate authority. 17. Regarding the contention that the Mess workers have filed a writ petition for their regularisation in service, being OJC No.221 of 1997, it has also got no force for the reason that whether an employee in regular capacity or NMR or DLR if working for an establishment will be an employee within the meaning of “employee” as defined under Section 2(f) of the Act. 18. 18. This Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in exercise of power of judicial review is supposed to see whether the decision making process is not proper and not to decide the correctness of demand in the nature of appeal. Since there is two concurrent finding given by the authorities empowered under Act based upon the relevant Acts, hence it would not proper to reverse the fact finding given by the authority. In view thereof, in my considered view, there is no infirmity in the impugned order. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.