JUDGMENT Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J. - The Rajasthan Rajya Sahakari Awasan Sangh Limited, which is a Society registered under the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act assails the order passed by the Employees Provident Fund Commissioner dated 25.11.2004 whereby it has assessed dues against the Society in respect of three employees. It also assails the order passed by the Commissioner dated 1st May, 2004 whereby review petition was dismissed and the order passed by the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal New Delhi, dated 9.5.2007 whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed on the ground of delay. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the three employees who were with them, were transferred alongwith the Scheme to Bhankrota Phase 1 Grah Nirman Sehkari Samiti Limited as per decision taken on 20.04.1991 and all instruments and work charge employees with all liabilities and assets were handed over to the said Cooperative Society on 31.03.1991. The effect of 1.4.1991, the daily wages to these employees and deduction of PF etc. was to be effected by the transferree Society. Accordingly after 1.4.1991 the payment of daily wage to the respondents-workmen was paid by the said Society and PF amount was also deducted from the said Society, w.e.f. Feb.1996. The same was not released for the reasons best known to the said Samiti. An order was passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner on 25.11.2004 holding that assessment of PF dues was to be made by the petitioner Society. 3. Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner had filed a review petition pointing out the facts as noted above but the review petition was rejected and, thereafter appeal was preferred and the appellate Tribunal, New Delhi had also dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that as the said employees were no more the employees of the Society and their services were transferred alongwith the entire Scheme to the Bhankrota Grah Nirman Sehkari Samiti Limited, Jaipur, there was no occasion to assess and demand the PF dues and hold the petitioner guilty of stopping the PF amount of the said employees and of having contravened the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1952'). Learned Counsel has drawn attention of this Court to the policy decision taken by the Society wherein it has been specifically provided that three employees would transfer to the concern Society. It is submitted that no further administrative or financial control on the said Society existed with the petitioner concern. Thus, it cannot be treated as a case of contravention of the provisions of the Act of 1952. 5. Per contra, Counsel appearing for the respondent-Provident Fund submits that the control of the Society and the regulation of the Scheme Bhankrota Phase I Grah Nirman Sehkari Samiti Limited, Jaipur is continued with the petitioner and the employees who were the actual employees of the petitioner, were entitled to get PF deducted from the petitioner Society and their inaction in stopping the deduction from February, 1996 was unjustified. The order dated 25.11.2004 passed by the Rajasthan Provident Fund Commissioner was in accordance with law and takes into consideration the documents relating to the petitioner's society and as per their profit and loss and balance sheet the water supply for Bhankrota has been reflected under the head 'property and assets.' It was also submitted that the Bhankrota Samiti was under the direct supervision and control of the petitioner and would act as per the directions issued by the petitioner. In the electricity bills of water supply scheme was also stated to be transferred to Samiti which were regularly been submitted in the name of the Rajasthan State Finance Society and was thus part of the petitioner-Society for all intents and purposes and the Employees PF deduction liability was on the parent society namely petitioner-Society. 6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner in support of his submission has relied on law laid down by the Apex Court in (1998) 2 Supreme Court Cases 446; Regional Provident Fund Commissioner & Anr. v. Dharamsi Morarji Chemical Co. Ltd. and 2007 (3) Supreme 748 ; Regional Provident Fund Commissioner v. M/s. Raj's Continental Exports (P) Ltd. 7. Counsel for the respondents has relied on law laid down by this Court in 2008 (5) WLC 659; M/s. Bennett Coleman & Company Limited Jaipur v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Jaipur & Ors. 8. v. Dharamsi Morarji Chemical Co. Ltd. and 2007 (3) Supreme 748 ; Regional Provident Fund Commissioner v. M/s. Raj's Continental Exports (P) Ltd. 7. Counsel for the respondents has relied on law laid down by this Court in 2008 (5) WLC 659; M/s. Bennett Coleman & Company Limited Jaipur v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Jaipur & Ors. 8. Having heard both the parties and after having considered the material on record this Court finds that the petitioner has floated a Scheme in the name of Kamla Nehru Nagar and Keshri Chand Nagar water supplier Scheme and the said Scheme has been put for control and implementation to the Bhankrota Grah Nirman Sehkari Samiti Limited, Jaipur. The said cooperative Society was registered separately and in pursuance of the said Scheme the employees who have worked on the daily wage basis with the petitioner were also transferred by an administrative decision dated 20.4.1991 holding that their daily wage shall be paid by the Bhankrota Grah Nirman Sehkari Samiti Limited Jaipur mentioning of the PF deduction being done from their heads by the petitioner-Society. Thus viewed, the Society transferred the Scheme alongwith man to the Bhankrota Grah Nirman Sehkari Samiti Limited, Jaipur, a separate entity. It appears that certain finances for the purpose of the implementation of the Scheme were also transferred. All the existing work and the work done by the petitioner-Society were also transferred. 9. In the circumstances merely because in the balance sheet the supply for Bhankrota Grah Nirman Sehkari Samiti Limited, Jaipur was reflected as property and assets upto 31.03.1995 would not mean that the employees were working with the petitioner-Society. Section 7A provides for determination of moneys due from employees. 10. 9. In the circumstances merely because in the balance sheet the supply for Bhankrota Grah Nirman Sehkari Samiti Limited, Jaipur was reflected as property and assets upto 31.03.1995 would not mean that the employees were working with the petitioner-Society. Section 7A provides for determination of moneys due from employees. 10. Section 2(e) of the Act of 1952 defines 'employer' which reads as under: - '(e) 'employer' means- (i) in relation to an establishment which is a factory, the owner or occupier of the factory, including the agent of such owner or occupier, the legal representative of a deceased owner or occupier and, where a person has been named as a manager of the factory under clause f of sub-section 1 of section 7 of the Factories Act, 1948 (63 of 1948), the person so named; and (ii) in relation to any other establishment, the person who, or the authority which, has the ultimate control over the affairs of the establishment, and where the said affairs are entrusted to a manager, managing director or managing agent, such manager, managing director or managing agent;' 11. The submission of the Counsel for the respondent-Provident Fund that the petitioner would be treated as the authority having control over the affairs of the establishment on facts is not made out. It has also come on record that the PF of the concerned employees was being deducted for the year 1994 to 1995 by Bhankrota Grah Nirman Sehkari Samiti Limited, Jaipur and, therefore, it cannot be said that after 31.3.1991 the concerned employees remained as the employees of the petitioner or that the petitioner was the employer within the meaning of 2(e) of the Act of 1952. 12. In the circumstances, therefore, the order passed by the Rajasthan Provident Fund Commissioner dated 25.11.2004 is liable to be set aside. 13. Learned Counsel for the respondent-Provident Fund has stated that the order dated 25.11.2004 does not call for any interference more so as the petitioner did not file an appeal as required within the limitation as provided under Rule 7 of the Employees Provident Funds Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1997 (hereinafter to be referred as the 'Rules of 1997'). It is submitted that the review petition required to be filed under Rule 7(2) was also not within limitation and thus, the order does not call for any interference. It is submitted that the review petition required to be filed under Rule 7(2) was also not within limitation and thus, the order does not call for any interference. It is also submitted that the delay cannot be condoned beyond period of 60 days plus 60 days as per the provisions contained in Rule 7(2) of the Rules of 1997. Thus, the order passed in appeal does not call for any interference. 14. Whilst it is true that in terms of Rule 7(2) of the appellate rules, appeal would have to be filed within 60 days and further time of 60 days may be granted if the Tribunal is satisfied that there was sufficient cause and that period is over. However, since the present petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India independently of the orders passed by the appellate authority, if the order of the Commissioner is examined on merits, it is apparent that action has been wrongfully taken as against the petitioner-society. The petitioner society cannot be treated to be an employer of the three workmen after they were transferred to the Bhankrota Grah Nirman Sehkari Samiti Limited, Jaipur who had also deposited the PF amount for the subsequent year. 15. In the circumstances, the writ petition is allowed. The order passed by the Employees Provident fund Commissioner, Jaipur dated 25.11.2014 is set aside.