JUDGMENT : S.N. Prasad, J. The petitioner being aggrieved with Annexures-4, 5 & 6 is before this court. Annexure-4 is an order passed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner dtd.18.3.2005 whereby and wherein the weaver members of the society has been held to be an employee U/s.2(f) of the E.P.F. & M.P. Act, 1952. Annexure-5 which is the order passed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner on 25.4.2005 by which the amount of Rs.18,98,330/- have been determined for the period from 7/1990 to 3/1998 with direction to deposit the dues already assessed for an amount of Rs.6,83,449.20 for the case period from 11/1985 to 6/1990 and from 7/1990 to 3/1998 as per the detail given therein and Annexure-6 is the demand notice issued U/s.8F of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. 2. The petitioner no.1 is the President of a society in the name of M/s.Barapali Meher Arts & Crafts Handloom Cooperative Society Ltd. while the petitioner no.2 is the Secretary of the said society. The society being registered under Societies Registration Act and governed under the provisions Rules of Cooperative Societies Act, 1962 with main function to improve financial conditions of the weavers by purchasing various instruments which are being utilized in preparing cloth to preserve the ancient art of weaving to advance the members of the society by giving trade and to give them proper education. In the society the weavers are the members and governed under the bye-laws and to run the society a committee has been constituted as per the provision of Orissa Cooperative Societies Act and the Rules made therein. The members of the society do not use any power and they prepare the thread themselves and no machineries are being utilized in weaving and preparing the clothes. 3. It is the case of the petitioner-Society that it is not coming under the purview of the Act, 1952 but even thereof the authorities empowered under the Act, 1952 is used to harass them hence the grievance having been made to the State authorities under the Textile Department and the Textile Department has also requested the authorities under the E.P.F. Act not to harass them as because the society of weavers is not coming under the parameter of the Act. The further case of the petitioner – society is that they are not coming under the purview but without taking into consideration the fact that the authorities have fixed liability and by holding the weavers as employee as per the definition given in Sec.2(f) of the Act, 1952 and accordingly notices have been issued hence the petitioner is before this court. 4. The grounds taken by learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the petitioner – society is that : (i) There no employer employee relationship exists between the weavers and the society. (ii) No wage is being paid to the weavers. (iii) The weavers are not employee under the provision of Sec.2(f) of the Act but the authorities have passed the order without considering the provision as contained in Sec.16(a) of the E.P.F. Act. So, the order passed by the authorities is without application of mind and without giving any reasoning rather the weaver members of the society has been held to be an employee within the meaning of Sec.2(f) of the E.P.F. & M.P. Act, 1952 merely on the basis of judgments rendered by different High Courts and as such the facts of the petitioner has never been considered hence the order is without any application of mind. 5. It has been asserted that the authorities have relied upon one judgment of Hon’ble Madras High Court rendered in case of Madathupatti Weavers Cooperative Production and Soles Society Vrs. RPFC & Others which has already been set aside by the Division bench of the Madras High Court and confirmed by Hon’ble Supreme Court which also suggests that the order has been passed without application of mind. 6. While on the other hand learned counsel for opposite party has vehemently opposed the prayer advanced on behalf of the petitioner and has submitted that (i) the petitioner – society is coming under Schedule (I) of Sec.1(3)(a) and to that effect Government of India has issued a notification on 30.11.1974 by which societies have been brought under Schedule (I), since petitioner is a society although of weavers, hence in view of the Government notification dtd.30.11.1974 the petitioner – society will be amenable to the jurisdiction of the Act, 1952. (ii) The coverage order dtd.31.10.1995 has never been challenged by the petitioner. (ii) The coverage order dtd.31.10.1995 has never been challenged by the petitioner. (iii) From the order as contained in Annexure-5 it would be evident that the salary register for the year 1996-97 and 2000-01, attendance register from 1997-98 to 2000-01, weavers’ wage register for 01/1997 to 03/1998 was produced before the competent authority and on the basis of that only the finding has been given in the order which is impugned. It has been contended that the salary register, attendance register and weavers’ wage register are the sufficient documents to prove that the members of the weavers’ society are also working under some wages. (iv) The petitioner has raised the question that the weavers being the members of the society are not employees and there is no employer – employee relationship, which totally depends upon the facts, hence this court sitting under Art.226 of the Constitution of India is not supposed to adjudicate things which are based upon factual aspect, moreover there is provision of statutory appeal as provided U/s.7(I) of the Act, 1952 hence the petitioner ought to have approached the appellate authority for determination of factual aspect. 7. So far as the contention that no enquiry has been conducted as stipulated U/s.16(a) of the Act, 1952, there is no meaning of no enquiry as because Central Government has itself notified on 30.11.1974 bringing the societies under the purview of Schedule (I), even assuming that even for the sake of argument if the argument of the petitioner would be accepted regarding enquiry to be conducted in the light of Sec.16(a) which also needs determination of the factual aspect regarding the work force of the employees working less than 50% and without the aid of power which cannot be adjudicated in a summary proceeding like the writ jurisdiction. 8. Heard learned counsels for both the parties and perused the documents on record. From the submission of the rival parties it is evident that the petitioner has raised serious objection regarding applicability of the Act since the petitioner who is a society and the weavers being the members are part of the society and they are not taking wages hence there is no master employee relationship, in absence thereof, the Act, 1952 will not be applicable. 9. 9. While on the other hand serious objection has been raised by the learned counsel for the opposite parties who has submitted that even the master employee relationship cannot be adjudicated in this court for the reason that there is forum of alternative remedy of appeal as provided U/s.17(I) of the Act, 1952. 10. There is no dispute about the fact that under the Act, 1952 there is statutory provision of appeal provided U/s.7(I). It is also not in dispute that even in case of availability of alternative remedy of appeal this court can exercise power conferred under Art.226 of the Constitution of India but it depends upon the facts and circumstances of the case. 11. It is also not in dispute that Act, 1952 is a welfare legislation meant for the welfare of the workers in time of need and as such the legislation meant for welfare of the workers is to be considered in its broader sense, then only the purpose of the Act would be achieved. 12. Learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the petitioner has raised so many question regarding i.e. (i) there is no employer employee relationship, (ii) the weavers who are members of the society are not the employees of the society rather they are part of the society, (iii) the weavers being the members are not being paid wages rather they are share-holders of the profit to be apportioned in its proportion. The competent authority has not taken into consideration all these aspects of the matter while deciding the case regarding applicability of the Act, 1952. 13. While on the other hand learned counsel for opposite parties have raised point that it is not a fact that the weavers being members of the society are not getting wages rather the members are working for profit motive of the society but simultaneously they are also working and for that they are being paid wages and a part of the wages was also been given the share of profit according to their entitlement. 14. To substantiate this argument it has been submitted that the petitioner – establishment has produced the attendance register, wages register and salary register and on the basis of which the finding has been given by the competent authority. Hence it cannot be said that they are not the workers having been engaged by the society. 15. 14. To substantiate this argument it has been submitted that the petitioner – establishment has produced the attendance register, wages register and salary register and on the basis of which the finding has been given by the competent authority. Hence it cannot be said that they are not the workers having been engaged by the society. 15. Further the petitioner has raised an objection that they are not coming under the purview in view of the provision as contained in Sec.16(a) of the Act, which also a subject matter of enquiry and depends upon the determination after taking into consideration the factual aspect. 16. Thus there is serious disputed question of fact which cannot be adjudicated under Art.226 of the Constitution of India by this court, moreover there is availability of alternative remedy of appeal as provided U/s.7(I) of the Act, 1952. 17. From perusal of the provision as contained in Sec.7(I) of the Act, 1952 it is evident that the Tribunal has also got same power which are vested in the officers referred to in Sec.7(A) and any proceeding of the Tribunal shall be deemed to be a judicial proceeding and the Tribunal can also pass order after providing an opportunity of being heard confirming, modifying or annealing the appeal again or may refer the case back to the authority which pass such order with such direction. 18. Thus it is evident that the Tribunal has been conferred with jurisdiction to adjudicate the issue which is to be answered after appreciating the various facts and circumstances. 19. In this case learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner - establishment is not master, its members are not workers, the petitioner – establishment is also be protected under the provision of Rule 16(a) of the Act, 1952 and as such not amenable to the provision of Act, 1952. 20. While on the other hand the opposite parties have contended that the establishment is coming under the purview of the Act, 1952, there is master-employee relationship in between the members who use to tender their work in lieu of wages and to that effect salary register, attendance register and wage register had been produced before the competent authority and further contended that protection provided U/s.16(a) of the Act, 1952 also depends upon the fact finding which cannot be adjudicated under writ jurisdiction by a High Court. 21. 21. Hence the issue surrounding the aforesaid controversy requires determination of question of facts after going into the merit of the contention raised by the rival parties. 22. The order impugned since is appealable under the provision of Sec.7(I) of the Act, 1952 where the aggrieved establishment has all the opportunity to raise the question of facts as well as of law with all supporting document, which can be considered by the appellate authority in exercise of the appellate power while considering the correctness of the demand. 23. However, this court in exercise of power under judicial review is only required to see whether the decision making process is proper or not and not to decide correctness of the demand in nature of an appeal. 24. In the circumstances, this court refrains from entering into the merit of the dispute which involves determination of question of facts involving liability of petitioner – establishment to pay a sum of Rs.1785746/- against the demand raised under the Act in exercise of power U/s.7(a) of the Act. 25. However, it will open to the petitioner to approach appellate forum under relevant provision of the Act, 1952. If any appeal is preferred before the appellate authority, it shall consider the issue of delay sympathetically in view of the fact that the petitioner was pursuing his remedy before this court by the instant writ petition. This writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid liberty. The interim order dtd.5.7.2005 stands vacated.