JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned Advocates for the parties. 2. The appellant before us is the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner of the Employees’ Provident Fund Organization whose attempt to effect coverage of the respondent establishment from 1st October, 1998 has been negated by the Tribunal as also by the learned First Court. It is the admitted position that the establishment in this case, an educational institution, stands covered under the Act with effect from 2nd April, 2003. The Authority of the first instance in a proceeding under Section 7-A of the Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 had sought such extended coverage on the basis of certain materials obtained from the I.C.S.E. Board. On that basis, they sought to increase the number of employees to bring the establishment under the coverage of the said Act from October 1998. Complaint of the establishment before the Tribunal was that they were never given copies of the records on which reliance was placed and the material witnesses were also not summoned. The Tribunal found breach of principles of natural justice and allowed the appeal of the establishment. The provident fund Authorities failed in their writ petition and the learned First Court had agreed with the decision of the Tribunal in substance. 3. On materials available, we do not think that there is any scope of interference with the order of the learned First Court. The Tribunal, being the fact finding body, had come to a specific conclusion that materials had not been supplied and on that basis reached its conclusion. There is no scope of re-appreciation of evidence at this stage. 4. We do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the learned First Court. We accordingly sustain the order of the learned First Court. 5. The appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to cost. 6. The connected application (I.A. No. 2459 of 2017) shall also stand disposed of, as we have dismissed the main appeal.