JUDGMENT P.B. Bajanthri, J. (Oral) - In the instant writ petition. petitioner has challenged the order dated 30.03.2010 passed by the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal (for short 'EPFAT') vide Annexure P-23. Petitioner is in the establishment of shoe business. Respondent-EPF department gave a surprise visit to the petitioner's business establishment on 05.06.1998 and report has been drawn to the extent of 21 persons were working as on the date of inspection. To that extent list of employees has been drawn and it was attested by one of the partner of the petitioner's business establishment. EPF department proceeded to hold that petitioner establishment covers under the EPF Act. To that extent an order was passed on 06.08.2001 under Section 7-A[1(a)] of EPF Act vide Annexure P-5. Thereafter due compliance of procedure was followed and assessment was also made for the period from June, 1998 to March, 2006 under 7-A proceedings on 22.06.2006. In the mean while petitioner has challenged 7-A[1(a)] proceedings before the EPFAT appeal in which it is prayed as under:- "The order No. PN/PBCH.20354/Enf.I/4356 dated 21.07.1998 covering the appellant establishment under the Employees' Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 be revoked & set aside with heavy cost in view of the facts stated above and law of the land" EPFAT rejected the petitioner's appeal. Hence the present petition. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is contradictory statement of the inspecting squad of one Sh. Laxman Dass to the extent that there were no attendance register and further in the cross examination he has seen the attendance register but not signed the attendance register. On this count alone proceedings under Section 7-A[1(a)] dated 06.08.2001 is liable to be set aside. Consequently further proceedings under Section 7-A dated 22.06.2006 and EPFAT's order dated 30.03.2010. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that petitioner has not challenged order dated 06.08.2001 before the EPFAT even though he has presented appeal before 7-A proceedings were drawn on 22.06.2006. It was further submitted that even proceedings under Section 7-A dated 22.06.2006 has not been challenged. Thus, no interference is called for in respect of EPFAT order dated 30.03.2010. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. Perusal of the prayer before the EPFAT it is evident that petitioner's had not challenged order dated 06.08.2001 and so also 22.06.2006. It was further submitted that even proceedings under Section 7-A dated 22.06.2006 has not been challenged. Thus, no interference is called for in respect of EPFAT order dated 30.03.2010. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. Perusal of the prayer before the EPFAT it is evident that petitioner's had not challenged order dated 06.08.2001 and so also 22.06.2006. In the absence of challenge to the 7 A [1(a)] proceedings dated 06.08.2001 petitioner is not entitled to any benefit. That apart EPFAT has erred in taking decision with reference to 7-A[1(a)] proceedings dated 06.08.2001 when it was not challenged in the appeal. In view of not challenging orders dated 06.08.2001 and 22.06.2006 before EPFAT petitioner has not made out a case so as to interfere with the order dated 30.03.2010. Accordingly, CWP stands dismissed.