JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri Sudeep Seth, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Piyush Kumar Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Savitra Vardhan Singh, learned counsel appearing for Union of India and Sri Akhilesh Pratap Singh, learned counsel for respondent no. 2, through video conferencing in view of COVID-19 pandemic. 2. By means of present writ petition the petitioners have assailed the validity of orders dated 16.03.2020, 31.07.2020, 24.08.2020, 31.08.2020 and 03.09.2020, passed by the respondent no. 2 in Case No. UPLKO0013539000/7A/07/2013 in proceedings under Section 7A of the Employees Provident Fund and Misc. Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1952”). 3. Sri Sudeep Seth, Senior Advocate has submitted that petitioner no.1 is a Partnership firm which was constituted on 01.04.2010 and subsequently there was change in the partnership deed and the petitioners firm was again re-constituted on 01.04.2012, while petitioner no.2 is a partner of the firm.. 4. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the controversy in the present writ petition relates to the various orders passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner – I, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as “the Provident Fund Commissioner) in proceedings under Section 7-A of the Act of 1952, for determining the liability of the petitioners as an employer under the Act of 1952. 5. The Provident Fund Commissioner has embarked upon the enquiry under Section 7A of the Act of 1952 by giving notice to the petitioner firm for determining the number of persons in employment with the petitioners. It is submitted that there are number of persons termed as “Commission Agents” “Stringers” and “Motivators” who according to the petitioners do not fall within the definition of “employee” as provided in Section 2(f) of the Act of 1952 and therefore contend that they are not liable to deposit any contribution on their behalf. 6. It is urged by the petitioners that they have deposited the contribution of the Provident Fund with regard to the persons who they consider as their employees, while the Commission Agents, etc. have never been employed/engaged by the petitioners, therefore they have no liability to deposit the contribution on their behalf. 7. 6. It is urged by the petitioners that they have deposited the contribution of the Provident Fund with regard to the persons who they consider as their employees, while the Commission Agents, etc. have never been employed/engaged by the petitioners, therefore they have no liability to deposit the contribution on their behalf. 7. The grievance the petitioners is that they are repeatedly being required to submit various documents, despite the fact that they have already submitted all the documents, as required, by the Provident Fund Commissioner, and as such, requiring the petitioners to furnish further information and documents constitutes harassment and therefore, it is vehemently urged that the impugned orders are clearly illegal and arbitrary and are liable to be set aside. 8. Learned Counsels appearing on behalf of Union of India and Provident Fund Commissioner have submitted that the Provident Fund Commissioner has power under Section 7A of the Act of 1952 to hear, inquire into the matter, to determine whether the “Commission Agents” etc. are infact employees of the petitioners or not and for which purpose under Section 7A(2) of the Act of 1952, the Provident Fund Commissioner has sufficient power to enforce attendance, require for production of documents, examine witnesses etc., and perusal of the order sheet would itself indicate that the petitioners have been wholly non cooperative with the Provident Fund Commissioner in as much as they are avoiding producing the record as directed, and are clearly responsible for the pendency of the matter for last more than 7 years. It has been submitted that the petitioners are bound to provide all the documents required by the Provident Fund Commissioner, as the said material is in possession of the petitioners and only on examination of such material can the Provident fund Commissioner determine the status of "Commissioner Agents/Stringers and Motivators" as to whether they fall in the definition of employee" under the Act of 1952 or not. 9. It has further been disclosed in the writ petition that several writ petitions have earlier been filed by the petitioners during the pendency of the proceedings under Section 7-A of the Act of 1952 and some of which are pending consideration and certain interim orders are holding field. 10. 9. It has further been disclosed in the writ petition that several writ petitions have earlier been filed by the petitioners during the pendency of the proceedings under Section 7-A of the Act of 1952 and some of which are pending consideration and certain interim orders are holding field. 10. Learned counsels for the respondents have further submitted that filing of such repeated writ petitions in a matter where, no order adverse to the petitioners has been passed by the Provident Fund Commissioner, amounts abuse of process of law and as such the present petition is not maintainable under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 11. It is further submitted on behalf of respondents that perusal of the impugned order would indicate that they are routine orders passed during the course of the proceedings under Section 7A of the Act of 1952 and writ jurisdiction could not be invoked in such matters. It is further submitted that no Fundamental right of the petitioners has been violated nor is there any allegation of violation of statutory provision and therefore present writ petition is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed at the very threshold. 12. In order to examine the contentions of learned counsel for the parties, it is necessary to peruse the impugned orders passed by the Provident Fund Commissioner. IMPUGNED ORDERS 12 (A).The first order which has been impugned by the petitioners is of 16th March, 2020 passed by Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-I, Lucknow. In the said order it has been recorded that the learned counsel for the petitioners could not produce attendance register which he was directed to produce by means of earlier order dated 9th March, 2020. The establishment has not submitted the details with respect to contribution of provident fund and other funds and data processing expenses for which the establishment representative seeks time to submit. This order further records that petitioners were directed to clarify certain heads of balance sheet for the year 2010-11 showing withdrawal/transfer amount of Rs.350 Crores reflected therein. Further list of details of Sahara India field workers as sought in point no.4 of the proceedings dated 09.03.2020, have also not been provided. The establishment was therefore directed to submit the same by the next date of hearing. Further list of details of Sahara India field workers as sought in point no.4 of the proceedings dated 09.03.2020, have also not been provided. The establishment was therefore directed to submit the same by the next date of hearing. In the said order, the Provident Fund Commissioner has also observed that from the record it has transpires that the “field workers” have requested the petitioners to keep the accumulation of the fund with them which was later on returned to their Trust after operations of their bank account. The said impugned order also mentions that one Sanjay Bajpai, Enforcement Officer of the Department raised a point that M/s Sahara India has submitted that they are complying with the directions in respect of 22351 employees and he wants to verify as to how many of such employees are appearing in the details of salary slips provided by the establishment for the period of enquiry. Therefore, he requested that he may be provided specific details of such 22351 employees including their names, employee ID No. of establishment, PF Account No. (if any), date of joining, year wise salary and allowances details since the date of joining or for the period of enquiry which ever is lesser, deduction under various account heads under the Act of 1952. 12 (B). The second order which has been impugned is dated 31.07.2020, wherein it has been recorded by the Provident Fund Commissioner that no one has put in appearance on behalf of Sahara India Field Workers Trust. Certain documents have been filed by the petitioners including a copy of the Trust Deed dated 17.03.2009. With regard to details of Sahara India Field Workers and their respective accumulations which were transferred by the establishment to the Sahara India Field Workers Trust on 02.12.2010. One Kamal Singh, General Manager of establishment had stated that even though these details are available, it is very difficult to retrieve them and at least one month time is required to submit the same. He also submits that it would be his personal responsibility to submit the aforesaid information. He also assured the Provident Fund Commissioner that he would submit a list of individual Field Workers alongwith respective accumulations of Future Fund as on 30.11.2010, which was transferred as part of Rs.350 crores to Sahara India Field Workers Welfare Trust on 02.12.2010, in one month time. He also assured the Provident Fund Commissioner that he would submit a list of individual Field Workers alongwith respective accumulations of Future Fund as on 30.11.2010, which was transferred as part of Rs.350 crores to Sahara India Field Workers Welfare Trust on 02.12.2010, in one month time. The order further records that the Deputy General Manager of the Establishment has also assured that he would submit the attendance list of the employees alongwith respective Account no., employee ID and PF deduction details as well as ledger Account of Sahara India Field Workers Welfare Trust by the next date of listing. 12 (C). The third order under challenge is dated 24.08.2020, on which date the representative of the petitioners again sought time to submit the documents related to the ledger account of Sahara India Field Workers Welfare Trust. The said order records that certain documents submitted by the petitioners and the Directors of the petitioners had sought exemption from appearance due to COVID-19 pandemic and old age. The petitioners assured the Provident Fund Commissioner that they would provide details of all the Field Workers alongwith their respective remittance of contribution made by the SHICL and SIRECL to Sahara India Field Workers Welfare Trust by the next date of hearing. On the said date, the Branch Manager of Kotak Mahindra Bank, Lucknow also appeared and sought time for providing information sought by the Provident Fund Commissioner. The order in question further records that cognizance has also been taken by the High Court by means of order dated 21.12.2018, passed in Writ Petition No. 37087 (M/S) of 2018, where the Court has observed that the petitioners would cooperate in the enquiry. The High Court has also recorded that the information sought by the Commissioner must be made available to the Provident Fund Commissioner, in the light of directions of the High Court which is necessary for identification of the “Field Workers” as well as any accumulation in their head, so that the controversy may be resolved which is pending for years without any headway, and that the establishment is legally and morally bound by the proceedings initiated under the Act of 1952. 12 (D).The fourth order under challenge in the writ petition is dated 31.08.2020. 12 (D).The fourth order under challenge in the writ petition is dated 31.08.2020. On the said date Director for SICCL Sri A.A.Zaidi appeared before the Provident Fund Commissioner and was directed to submit the bank statement with respect to the Field Workers from April, 2010 to March, 2012. The General Manager who had assured the Provident Fund Commissioner that he would supply all the documents on the previous date, did not appear and this fact was noted by the Provident Fund Commissioner in the order. It has been noted in the order that it is a common practice of the petitioners that after committing to provide the documents, they do not appear on the date fixed, due to which said proceedings are pending since last seven years. the Provident Fund Commissioner after giving due details and reasons was constrained to record that to enforce attendance and submission of documents by the concerned persons directed Sri Kamal Singh to appear alongwith record and documents on the next date of hearing failing which suitable action against him as well as establishment would be taken. the Provident Fund Commissioner also recorded the statement of Director of SICCL A.A. Zaidi, that his Company does not appoint any Agent or Field Worker and also sought time to ascertain mode of appointment of workers of SICCL. On the said date the representative of the petitioners has also not submitted ledger account of Sahara India Field Workers Welfare Trust. The EO appearing for the Department submitted that as per general ledger account no. 567555 of Sahara India pertaining to Sahara India Field Workers Welfare Trust for the period 01.04.2010 to 31.03.2011 is submitted by them during proceedings dated 11.08.2020 and therefore, the Provident Fund Commissioner directed the establishment to provide copies of the same. 12 (E). The fifth order under challenge in this writ petition is dated 03.09.2020. On the said date Sri A.A. Zaidi, Director SICCL appeared before the Provident Fund Commissioner and at the very outset sought more time to submit the documents which they were required to produce. No one was present on behalf of SIRECL and SHICL, despite assurance on the previous date that relevant documents would be submitted. On the said date Sri A.A. Zaidi, Director SICCL appeared before the Provident Fund Commissioner and at the very outset sought more time to submit the documents which they were required to produce. No one was present on behalf of SIRECL and SHICL, despite assurance on the previous date that relevant documents would be submitted. Even the General Manager of the petitioners Sri Kamal Singh, who appeared did not submit any document in compliance of earlier orders of the Provident Fund Commissioner and again assured that if time is granted he would submit all the other documents. It has also come on record that the petitioners is not cooperating in the proceedings, though their exists clear direction of the High Court to the petitioners to extend whole hearted cooperation in providing information and documents to come to a conclusion with respect to the Field Workers. In view of the aforesaid the Provident Fund Commissioner was constrained to impose cost/penalty of Rs.5000/- per day till the next date of hearing for submission of details and records of proceedings dated 31.02.2020. 13. It was necessary to cull out details of the impugned orders so as to examine the nature of the orders which are being challenged by the petitioners. From the aforesaid orders impugned in the present writ petition it clearly transpires that the petitioners are avoiding production of documents relevant for the enquiry, which have been directed by the Provident Fund Commissioner to be produced. The said record is necessary so that facts can be ascertained with regard to the status of persons deemed to be employees of the petitioner so that the liability of the petitioners can be fastened in accordance with the provisions of the act of 1952. 14. The perusal of the impugned orders indicate that they only record proceedings of the day and on the respective dates the representatives of the petitioner firm appeared only with a view to seek further time to produce the documents and information as directed by the authority. On certain dates they did not appear on the date fixed and it has been categorically recorded by the Provident Fund Commissioner that the petitioners are not cooperating in the proceedings which is clearly contrary to the directions issued by this Court in Writ Petition No. 37087 (M/S) of 2018. On certain dates they did not appear on the date fixed and it has been categorically recorded by the Provident Fund Commissioner that the petitioners are not cooperating in the proceedings which is clearly contrary to the directions issued by this Court in Writ Petition No. 37087 (M/S) of 2018. Vide order dated 03.09.2020, a cost of Rs.5000/- was also imposed till the next date of hearing. 15. It is necessary to notice at this stage that the orders impugned by the petitioners in the instant writ petition do not disclose any decision on any point, or any adjudication on an issue, but only disclose routine orders. The learned Counsel the petitioners failed to bring to the notice of the court any order or direction which may have been passed by the Provident Fund Commissioner by which any rights of the petitioners has been violated, or any other order passed in violation of any of the statutory provisions. 16. The counsel for the petitioners only submitted that the "Commission Agents" etc. are not the “employees” of the petitioner, and the Provident Fund Commissioner by requiring production of such material/documents from the petitioners pertaining to the engagement of “Commission Agents”, “Stringers” and "Motivators", amounted to harassment of the petitioners, and have therefore sought indulgence of this court to stay the proceedings and quash the impugned orders by which the documents/material are being demanded. 17. During the pendency of the proceedings under Section 7A of the Act of 1952, several writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners before this Court challenging the orders passed during the course of the proceedings. 18. In the instant writ petition the petitioners have annexed some orders passed by this Court. It would be necessary to go through the said orders as they pertain to the same controversy arising from the same proceedings pending before the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner. 19. The writ petitions filed by the petitioners so far : 19 (A).In the year 2013, when the proceedings were at the very inception and the petitioners had received notice for submitting various documents, and subsequently the Provident Fund Commissioner was constrained to pass an order stating that in case the petitioners fails to produce the documents, they have to resort to search of the premises as provided in the Act of 1952. Writ Petition No. 9 (M/B) of 2013 was preferred before the Division Bench of this Court, and by means of order dated 03.01.2013, interim protection was granted to the petitioners to the effect, that in exercise of power under Section 7-A of the Act of 1952, liberty was granted to the respondents to search for the relevant documents, but were restrained from seizing the premises. The said writ petition is still pending. That subsequent order dated 20.2.2020 passed by the Division bench of this court in the said writ petition is relevant and necessary and is being quoted here in below:- “1. Heard Mr. Sudip Seth, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Piyush Kumar Agarwal, learned counsel for petitioners and Mr. Shailendra Srivastava, learned counsel for respondents. 2. We are surprised to see that in this case various orders have been passed, like seizure, search ceiling attachment, etc., which were challenged on the ground that power of seizure is not vested with respondents authorities. The seizure and ceiling was stayed but no order was passed restraining competent authority to pass a final order in the matter. Still for the last more than seven years no final order has been passed. We are surprised to see as to why matter has not been finalized till date. 3. Learned counsel for respondents submitted that petitioners is not cooperating and his conduct is very bad but that does not mean that respondents-competent authority cannot pass final order, if petitioners is not cooperating. It appears that respondents-competent authority is wholly ignorant of manner in which matters are to be decided and finalized and has no minimum knowledge in this respect. 4. Let respondent no. 2 and 3 personally should appear before this Court on 24.3.2020 to explain as to why matter has not been finalized till date and they are keeping it pending for last more than seven years 2 and are only interested in passing orders which are interlocutory, but no final order has been passed.” The said petition is pending consideration. 19 (B). Subsequently, Writ Petition No. 15300 (M/S) of 2017 – Sahara India Vs. Union and India and Others, was preferred. 19 (B). Subsequently, Writ Petition No. 15300 (M/S) of 2017 – Sahara India Vs. Union and India and Others, was preferred. Taking into consideration the fact that the petitioners were not complying with the directions of the Provident Fund Commissioner, orders were passed to seize the bank accounts, aggrieved by which, the petitioners challenged the order dated 30.06.2017, passed by the Provident Fund Commissioner. This Court by means of order dated 21.07.2017 passed an interim order staying the order dated 30.06.2017. The petition is pending consideration. 19 (C).Writ petitioners No. 28970 (M/S) of 2017 was withdrawn with liberty to file fresh writ petition. 19 (D).Writ Petition No. 6267 (M/S) of 2018, preferred by the petitioners was consigned to record by means of order dated 2517 of 2018 as the petition did not conform to order 30 of Code of Civil Procedure. 19 (E).Writ Petition No. 17351 (M/S) of 2018, was consigned to record with liberty to file fresh writ petition by means of order dated 02.07.2018. 19 (F).Further another writ petition was filed being Writ Petition No. 37087 (M/S) of 2018, by which order dated 08.09.2017 was challenged by the petitioners. It was also subject matter of challenge in Writ Petition No. 6267 (M/S) of 2018 and after detailed discussion, an interim order was passed on 21.12.2018, which reads as under :- “In the end learned counsel for the Provident Commissioner was specifically asked as to what was the amount payable by the petitioners as contribution under the Act of 1952, he submitted that the amount infact is not possible to be calculated. Then he was asked as how the order would be implemented when the amount itself is not clear, he very frankly submitted that at the moment it cannot be enforced, as the petitioners has not disclosed the details. Moreover, he could not at least at this stage satisfactorily answer the question with regard to Section 2(f) and 2(b). In this view of the matter, it is provided that the exercise as ordered to be conducted by this Court in pursuance to the earlier orders dated 06.03.2018 and 27.03.2018, passed in Writ Petition No. 6267 (M/S) of 2018 shall continue to be conducted by the opposite parties and based thereon a counter affidavit shall be filed. In this view of the matter, it is provided that the exercise as ordered to be conducted by this Court in pursuance to the earlier orders dated 06.03.2018 and 27.03.2018, passed in Writ Petition No. 6267 (M/S) of 2018 shall continue to be conducted by the opposite parties and based thereon a counter affidavit shall be filed. The petitioners shall whole heartedly cooperate in the said exercise and any avoidance and non cooperation on their part would be taken seriously by this Court. As no coercive action is being taken by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner at this stage as stated by Sri Shailendra Srivastava at the Bar and in view of what has been stated by him, as it is not possible to take the same at this stage, therefore, there is no requirement to stay the impugned order at this stage.” 20. In the aforesaid writ petition, this Court after going through the entire factual matrix of the case and also referring to various writ petitions preferred by the petitioners, was of the considered view that the Provident Fund commissioner without recording a finding with regard to the fact as to whether the “Commission Agents” were employees of the petitioners, were being made liable on the basis of prima-facie satisfaction without necessary exercise having been undertaken, and therefore indulgence was shown by this Court to a very limited extent. This Court was of the view that it is not possible for fastening any liability on the petitioners without determination of various issues involved in the case. Primarily, the controversy pertained to whether the “Commission Agents/Stringers” are employees of the petitioners firm or not and only after due determination the question would arise with regard to their contribution and only thereafter the liability of the petitioners firm can be fastened. 21. In the light of the above, this Court was of the view that no amount can be recovered at that stage of the proceedings as the amount is not capable of being quantified. Without determination of the number of employees of the petitioners, the Regional Provident Commissioner was restrained from taking coercive steps against the petitioners, and the statement of the Counsel for the Opposite party, to this effect was recorded. The learned Single Judge further directed the Provident Fund Commissioner to proceeded with the matter, and the petitioners were expected to whole heartedly cooperate in the exercise. The learned Single Judge further directed the Provident Fund Commissioner to proceeded with the matter, and the petitioners were expected to whole heartedly cooperate in the exercise. 22. A careful reading of the aforesaid judgment would indicate that no specific directions have been issued by this Court, to the manner in which the proceedings are being conducted by the Provident Fund Commissioner, and even otherwise, the challenge was made only to the process of recovery issued by the Provident Fund Commissioner, without recording any finding with regard to the status of "Commissioner Agents, Stringers and Motivators". 23. At this stage it is also interesting to note that the petitioners has repeatedly stated in the said writ petition that proceedings before the Provident Fund Commissioner are to be proceeded only in accordance with the aforesaid order dated 21.12.2018 and have constantly made allegations against the Provident Fund Commissioner that he is not proceedings in accordance with the said order. 24. In Writ Petition No. 28708 (M/S) of 2017, the order dated 31.08.2017, passed by the Provident Fund Commissioner was assailed and vide order dated 29.11.2017, this Court had recorded the fact that the petitioners were ready to furnish a list of “Commissioner Agents/Field Workers/Motivators” to the respondents within a week. 25. The writ petition no.37087 (MS) of 2018 is connected with Writ Petitions Nos. 15274(MS) of 2017, 15277 (MS)/2017, 15279 (MS)/2017, 15300 (MS)/2017, 28708 (MS)/2017, 6267 (MS)/2018, and are pending consideration before this Court. All the writ petitions have been preferred by the petitioners challenging various orders passed during the course of the proceedings pending before the Provident Fund Commissioner. 26. The substratum of the case of the petitioners is that the “Commission Agents/Field Workers/Motivators” are not employees of the petitioners and are not covered by the definition of employee given in Section 2(f) of the Provident Fund and Misc. Provisions Act and therefore no liability can be fastened on the petitioners in this regard. 27. Perusal of the orders which have been impugned in the present writ petition would indicate that they are routine orders regarding the proceedings. Provisions Act and therefore no liability can be fastened on the petitioners in this regard. 27. Perusal of the orders which have been impugned in the present writ petition would indicate that they are routine orders regarding the proceedings. Statement of the parties appearing before the Regional Commissioner have been recorded therein, where it shows that the petitioners have been directed to produce certain records and they themselves have sought time to produce the same, but did not either appear on the next date of listing or sought more time to produce the record. The conduct of the petitioners clearly is not in accordance with the orders of this Court dated 21.12.2018, where the Court had expected the petitioners to cooperate in the proceedings. 28. Under the Act of 1952, definition of the “employee” as provided in Section 2(f) of the Act of 1952, is reproduced herein below :- "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;" 29. A perusal of the aforesaid definition of the term “employee” would indicate that according to the Act of 1952 ‘employee’ means any person who is employed in any kind of work manual or otherwise in connection with establishment and gets his wages directly or indirectly from the employer. It is not necessary that a person has to be directly connected with the work of principal establishment, but even if he is somehow connected with the work of the establishment and gets wages directly or indirectly from the employer would fall within the definition of ‘employee’. the Provident Fund Commissioner is totally within its competence and power to determine as to who are the employees of the establishment. the Provident Fund Commissioner is totally within its competence and power to determine as to who are the employees of the establishment. The nomenclature of ‘employee’ will not be determinative with regard to the nature of his employment and it is only after detailed enquiry can the Provident Fund Commissioner can come to a conclusion whether person or class of persons is included within the definition of ‘employee’ as per section 2(f) of the Act of 1952. 30. In the present case, notices were issued to the petitioners some time in the year 2013 as the Provident Fund Commissioner was seeking to examine whether “Commissioner Agents/Field Workers/Motivators” would be covered within the definition of “employee” as provided under the Act of 1952. In furtherance of enquiry, the Provident Fund Commissioner was within his competence to ask the employer ,that is the petitioners, to submit all the documents, in order to determine the nature of employment, and as to whether they i.e. “Commissioner Agents/Field Workers/Motivators” would fall within the definition of term ‘employee’ as defined under the Act of 1952, and consequently liability if any of the petitioners. 31. In order to make necessary enquiry the Provident Fund Commissioner is clothed with sufficient powers to direct the Inspector to enter, search any establishment/premise and examine any relevant matter as provided for in Section 7-A(2) of the Act of 1952. 32. In light of the provisions contained in the Act of 1952, the issue to be decided by the Provident Fund Commissioner, is as to whether the persons termed as “Commission Agents”, “Stringers” and “Motivators” fulfill the conditions prescribed in Section 2(f) of the Act of 1952 or not. For coming to any such decision or a finding, the course open for the Provident Fund Commissioner is to seek information from the employer i.e. the petitioners, from which he can determine the relationship between the petitioners and “Commission Agents”, "Stringers" and "Motivators", but the petitioners are not cooperating and submitting documents and material, as clearly recorded by the Division Bench in its order dated 20/02/2020 and also by the learned Single Judge. 33. 33. It is necessary to refer to one of the orders in the series of writ petitions preferred by the petitioners which is Writ Petition No. 37087 (M/S) of 2018, in which order dated 31.07.2019 was passed, where this Court has also recorded that, “the said writ petition pertains to same dispute as raised by the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 28708 (M/S) of 2017 – M/s Sahara India Financial Corporation Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Another”. In the said order this Court had sought information from the petitioners on three points stated therein namely :- “1. Whether company, SIFCL, is having license from the Reserve Bank of India for running NBFC activities, for the purposes of which Commission Agents are required. 2. Whether looking into the fact that the Management and Stock Holders in both firms and company are nearly the same and both of them can be clubbed together as one establishment for the purposes of ESI. 3. Whether any evidence was filed before the authority concerned before passing of the impugned order, with regard to the relationship between company and the alleged Commission Agents.” 34. At the very outset it is noticed that the said order has not been disclosed by the petitioner in the entire writ petition. The petitioners in the instant writ petition have deliberately concealed the said order, thereby conveniently avoiding to answer the inconvenient questions posed by this Court in the aforesaid order dated 31.07.2019. 35. The petitioners also could not respond to the query raised by this Court in its order dated 21/07/2019 passed in Writ Petition No. 37087 (MS) of 2018, as to whether they are having any license from the Reserve Bank of India for running Non Banking Financial Corporation activities, and in case the answer is in negative, then how could they engage "Commission Agents" when they were not involved in business of banking. Instead of pursuing their remedy in the writ petitions already preferred by them earlier, pertaining to the same subject matter. The petitioners have filed number of petitions, raising the same issue, time and again, without placing all the material before this Court as directed in Writ Petition No. 37087/2018 nor are they cooperating in the proceedings before the Regional Commissioner. No averment has been made in this regard in the writ petition. 36. The petitioners have filed number of petitions, raising the same issue, time and again, without placing all the material before this Court as directed in Writ Petition No. 37087/2018 nor are they cooperating in the proceedings before the Regional Commissioner. No averment has been made in this regard in the writ petition. 36. The aforesaid questions raised by this Court were extremely pertinent and the answers would have been extremely helpful in deciding the controversy as raised by the petitioners before the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner. 37. From the bare reading the order dated 31.07.2019 passed in Writ Petition No. 37087 (M/S) of 2018 makes is clear that the petitioners have contended before this Court that they had appointed Commissioner Agents to collect the premium from various individuals which was to be collected by M/s SIFCL which was “Non Banking Financial Corporation”, registered by the Reserve Bank of India. The said license was annulled by the Reserve Bank of India some time in the year 2013, but still the said "Commission Agents" etc. continued to be retained with the petitioners and in this context this Court had made above query, as to why the so called Commission Agents were continuing when the company ceases to function as a Non Banking Financial Corporation. 38. Perusal of the writ petition would indicate that the petitioners has not even attempted to place relevant records or attempted to answer the question as sought by the Court and have instead instituted fresh proceedings by filing the instant writ petition. 39. From a bare perusal of the details of the writ petitions filed by the petitioners, as well as the orders passed by this Court, it is clear that the petitioners were repeatedly seeking interference from this Court so as to stall the proceedings before the Provident Fund Commissioner, inasmuch as, they are reluctant from providing information with regard to the so-called "Commission Agents, Stringers and Motivators" to enable the Provident Fund Commissioner to arrive at a finding as to whether they are employees of the petitioners and consequently their liability under the Act of 1952. It has also to be borne in mind that this Court has repeatedly directed the petitioners to cooperate in the proceedings, but a bare perusal of the impugned orders clearly show beyond doubt, that the petitioners are avoiding placing all the material before the Provident Fund Commissioner, and are repeatedly approaching this Court by filing successive writ petitions challenging routine orders passed in proceedings under section 7A of the Act of 1952 which can be clearly termed as an abuse of the process of the court. 40. Perusal of orders impugned in the present writ petition as noted herein above do not decide any issue or lis between the parties but merely record the proceedings conducted on the said date. The said orders mentions the assurances given by the petitioners to provide details of the “Commissioner Agents/Field Workers/Motivators” and also records statements of the officers of the department who have received some record and have found certain deficiency with regard to the details contained therein and on their submissions the Provident Fund Commissioner had directed the petitioners to either clarify the details contained therein or to furnish further evidence. In sum and substance the impugned orders pertain to seeking requisite documents/material from the petitioners so as to decide/determine the dispute under Section 7A of the Act of 1952. The aforesaid orders have not decided any lis or any issue raised by the petitioners. The petitioners have not even whispered or alleged any violation of the rights much less Constitutional rights by the impugned orders. In absence of any such allegation the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain such a writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution will have to be examined. Jurisdiction of High Court under article 226 41. Ordinarily this Court in exercise of power under Article 226/227 of the Constitution would not interfere in the day to day proceedings of statutory authority or Tribunal unless in conduct of the same there is some jurisdictional error going to the root of the matter where by it can be said that said authority would be proceeding without any sanction of law or that in the course of proceedings some orders have been passed which are violative of part III of the Constitution. It is only when the statutory authority or a Tribunal have decided the lis between the parties and in case there is no efficacious alternative remedy, the aggrieved person would be at liberty to approach this Court for judicial review of the order passed by the said authority or Tribunal. 42. In the present case, the dispute when decided by the Regional Commissioner would be amenable firstly to review under Section 7(b) of the Act of 1952 and secondly by way of appeal before the Industrial Tribunal under Section 7(d) of the Act of 1952. 43. Looking into the scheme of the Act and Rules framed under it, it is clear that the legislature has provided a procedure for ventilation of the grievances against the order of the Provident Fund Commissioner under Section 7A of the Act of 1952 by way of an review under Section 7B of the Act of 1952 and appeal before the Appellate Tribunal under Section 7D of the Act of 1952. The aggrieved person will have to wait for the final outcome of the proceedings under Section 7A, and a writ petition would not be maintainable against any and every order passed by the Provident Fund Commissioner. This aspect of the matter was considered by the Hon. Supreme Court in the case of Deep Industries Limited vs ONGC, 2019 SCC online SC 1602 where the Apex Court was considering the interference by the High Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India against the orders passed during arbitration proceedings observed as under :- "18. In SBP & Co. ( 2005 (8) SCC 618 ), this Court while considering interference with an order passed by an arbitral tribunal under Article 226/227 of the Constitution laid down as follows:- “45. It is seen that some High Courts have proceeded on the basis that any order passed by an arbitral tribunal during arbitration, would be capable of being challenged under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution. We see no warrant for such an approach. Section 37 makes certain orders of the arbitral tribunal appealable. Under Section 34, the aggrieved party has an avenue for ventilating his grievances against the award including any in-between orders that might have been passed by the arbitral tribunal acting under Section 16 of the Act. We see no warrant for such an approach. Section 37 makes certain orders of the arbitral tribunal appealable. Under Section 34, the aggrieved party has an avenue for ventilating his grievances against the award including any in-between orders that might have been passed by the arbitral tribunal acting under Section 16 of the Act. The party aggrieved by any order of the arbitral tribunal, unless has a right of appeal under Section 37 of the Act, has to wait until the award is passed by the Tribunal. This appears to be the scheme of the Act. The arbitral tribunal is, after all, a creature of a contract between the parties, the arbitration agreement, even though, if the occasion arises, the Chief Justice may constitute it based on the contract between the parties. But that would not alter the status of the arbitral tribunal. It will still be a forum chosen by the parties by agreement. We, therefore, disapprove of the stand adopted by some of the High Courts that any order passed by the arbitral tribunal is capable of being corrected by the High Court under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution. Such an intervention by the High Courts is not permissible. 46. The object of minimizing judicial intervention while the matter is in the process of being arbitrated upon, will certainly be defeated if the High Court could be approached under Article 227 or under Article 226 of the Constitution against every order made by the arbitral tribunal therefore, it is necessary to indicate that once arbitration is commenced in the arbitral tribunal unless course of right of appeal is available for under Section 37 of the Act even at early stage." 44.In the above judgment the Supreme Court also considered the case of Mafatlal Industries Limited vs Union of India (1997) 5 SCC 536 , wherein the Court held as under : “so far in the jurisdiction of the High Court under article 226-or for that matter, jurisdiction of this Court under article 32-is concerned, it is obvious that the provisions of the act cannot bar and curtails the remedies. It is, however, equally obvious that while exercising power under article 226/32, the Court would certainly take note of the legislative intent manifested in the provisions of the act and will exercise of jurisdiction consistent with the provisions of the enactment. It is, however, equally obvious that while exercising power under article 226/32, the Court would certainly take note of the legislative intent manifested in the provisions of the act and will exercise of jurisdiction consistent with the provisions of the enactment. Further it will also considered “in the judgment is relied upon by Sri Vaidyanathan, which, by a large, reiterated the proposition laid down in Babu Ram Prakash Chandra Maheshwari vs Antarim Zila Parishad, AIR 1969 SC 556 , it has been held that alternative remedy is not a bar to entertaining of writ petitions filed for enforcement of any of the fundamental rights or where there has been a violation of principles of natural justice order by the order under challenge is wholly without jurisdiction or where vires of the statute is under challenge." 45.In absence of allegation of the petitioners with regard to violation of any of his fundamental rights, this Court would loathe to interfere in such a matter and needless to say, that during the pendency of a dispute before the statutory authority or Tribunal this Court would not arrogate to itself the proceedings pending before the Provident Fund Commissioner and embark upon an enquiry so as proceed to determine and answer the questions pending before the Regional Commissioner as to whether “Commissioner Agents/Field Workers/Motivators” are employees of the petitioners or not. Wherever a statutory authority or Tribunal has been empowered to decide a particular dispute, the same will have to be decided by that authority, and only after a decision is taken, which is adverse to the petitioners, the same can be appropriately challenged. 46. It is a settled legal proposition that a person cannot be permitted to meddle in any proceeding, unless he satisfies the Authority/Court, that he falls within the category of aggrieved persons. 47. Only a person who has suffered, or suffers from legal injury can challenge the act/action/order etc. A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable either for the purpose of enforcing a statutory or legal right, or allegation that there has been a breach of statutory duty on the part of the Authorities. Therefore, there must be a judicially enforceable right available for enforcement, on the basis of which writ jurisdiction is resorted to. A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable either for the purpose of enforcing a statutory or legal right, or allegation that there has been a breach of statutory duty on the part of the Authorities. Therefore, there must be a judicially enforceable right available for enforcement, on the basis of which writ jurisdiction is resorted to. The Court can of course, enforce the performance of a statutory duty by a public body, using its writ jurisdiction at the behest of a person, provided that such person satisfies the Court that he has a legal right to insist on such performance. The existence of such right is a condition precedent for invoking the writ jurisdiction of the courts. It is implicit in the exercise of such extraordinary jurisdiction that, the relief prayed for must be one to enforce a legal right. Infact, the existence of such right, is the foundation of the exercise of the said jurisdiction by the Court. The legal right that can be enforced must ordinarily be the right of the appellant himself, who complains of infraction of such right and approaches the Court for relief as regards the same. (Vide : State of Orissa v. Madan Gopal Rungta, AIR 1952 SC 12 ; Saghir Ahmad & Anr. v. State of U.P., AIR 1954 SC 728 ; 1044; Rajendra Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1996 SC 2736 ; and Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Shareholders Welfare Association (2) v. S.C. Sekar & Ors., (2009) 2 SCC 784 ). 48. A “legal right”, means an entitlement arising out of legal rules. Thus, it may be defined as an advantage, or a benefit conferred upon a person by the rule of law. The expression, “person aggrieved” does not include a person who suffers from a psychological or an imaginary injury; a person aggrieved must therefore, necessarily be one, whose right or interest has been adversely affected or jeopardized. (Vide: Shanti Kumar R. Chanji v. Home Insurance Co. of New York, AIR 1974 SC 1719 ; and State of Rajasthan & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1977 SC 1361 ). 49. The jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is couched in wide terms and the exercise thereof is not subject to any restrictions except the territorial restrictions which are expressly provided in the Articles. v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 1977 SC 1361 ). 49. The jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is couched in wide terms and the exercise thereof is not subject to any restrictions except the territorial restrictions which are expressly provided in the Articles. But the exercise of the jurisdiction is discretionary, it is not exercised merely because it is lawful to do so. The very amplitude of the jurisdiction demands that it will ordinarily be exercised subject to certain self imposed limitations. Resort that jurisdiction is not intended as an alternative remedy for relief which may be obtained in a suit or other mode prescribed by statute. Ordinarily the Court will not entertain a petition for a writ under Article 226 , where the petitioners have an alternative remedy, which without being unduly onerous, provides an equally efficacious remedy. Again, the High Court does not generally enter upon a determination of questions which demand an elaborate examination of evidence to establish the right to enforce for which the writ is claimed. 50. The High Court, does not, therefore, act as a Court of appeal against the decision of a Court or Tribunal, to correct errors of fact, and does not by assuming jurisdiction under Article 226 trench upon an alternative remedy provided by statute for obtaining relief. Where it is open to the aggrieved petitioners to move another tribunal, or even itself in another jurisdiction for obtaining redress in the manner provided by a statute, the High Court normally will not permit by entertaining a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the machinery created under the statute to be bypassed, and will leave the party applying to it to seek resort to the machinery so set up. The petitioners having failed to make any allegations regarding violation of fundamental rights, violation of principles of natural justice, or violation of any statutory provision, the present writ petition would not be maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 51. The petitioners having failed to make any allegations regarding violation of fundamental rights, violation of principles of natural justice, or violation of any statutory provision, the present writ petition would not be maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 51. The manner and impunity in which series of writ petitions have been filed, coupled with the fact that before the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner the petitioners are reluctant to furnish relevant information desired from them, it is clear their effort is to procrastinate the proceedings before the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner so that no liability is fastened upon them nor the issues as raised therein determined expeditiously. 52. Considering the aforesaid facts in totality, I am of the considered view that the present writ petition is nothing but clear abuse of process of law in light of the fact that numerous writ petitions have been filed in this court one after another for the same cause of action seeking interference of this Court in the proceedings pending before the Provident fund commissioner. This Court is of the considered view that the petitioners are not co-operating with the Provident Fund Commissioner, and are not producing documents as directed, thereby deliberately delaying the decision in the matter, which is pending since last more than 7 years. The proceedings cannot be kept pending indefinitely on account on non production of document by the petitioners, and despite directions of this Court, it seems, not much progress has taken place. 53. We also notice with anguish that earlier this Court also by means of order dated 21.12.2018, passed in Writ Petition No. 6267 (M/S) of 2018, had directed the petitioners to cooperate in the proceedings, and also in the order dated 31.7.2019 passed in writ petition no. 37087(MS) of 2018 certain pertinent information was sought, but it seems that the said directions were not complied by the petitioners and have conveniently chosen to file yet another petition without disclosing about the order dated 31.7.2018 or placing on record the reply to the query of the Court. The petitioners are clearly responsible for delaying the proceedings before the Provident Fund Commissioner and therefore the matter is not being determined finally by him. 54. The petitioners are clearly responsible for delaying the proceedings before the Provident Fund Commissioner and therefore the matter is not being determined finally by him. 54. I am also satisfied that the manner in which the orders of the Provident Fund Commissioner are being challenged before this Court without any adverse orders having been passed against the petitioners nor any of the rights of the petitioners having been determined, the petitioners are clearly guilty of abusing the process of the Court. 55. The writ petition for the reasons recorded hereinabove is bereft of merits and is liable to be dismissed. Before parting, it is necessary to reiterate the directions given by this Court with regard to the proceedings pending before the Provident Fund Commissioner. The Provident Fund Commissioner is expected to conclude the proceedings pending before him, expeditiously, say within a period of four months from the date a copy of this order is produced before him. The petitioners shall produce all the material and documents as directed by the Regional Provident fund Commissioner within a period of one month from today. Subject to the protection given to the petitioners in the various orders passed by this court, the Regional Provident fund Commissioner shall exercise the powers as provided to him under the Act of 1952 to procure all the material necessary for deciding the dispute pending before him, and conclude the proceedings in the time provided by this court in accordance with law after giving the opportunity of hearing to the petitioners within the time provided. In case the document are not filed, the Provident Fund Commissioner shall close the opportunity to file documents and proceed to hear and pass final orders on the basis of material before him making best assessment judgment. 56. In light of the above, the writ petition is dismissed with cost of Rs. 50,000/- (Fifty Thousand). The cost is required to be deposited with the Senior Registrar of this Court within a period of one month from today. In case the said amount is not deposited within one month, the Senior Registrar shall take steps and intimate this order to the District Magistrate/Collector Lucknow, who shall proceed and recover the amount of cost from the petitioners as arrears of land revenue. In case the said amount is not deposited within one month, the Senior Registrar shall take steps and intimate this order to the District Magistrate/Collector Lucknow, who shall proceed and recover the amount of cost from the petitioners as arrears of land revenue. On receipt of the amount of cost, by the Senior Registrar, the same shall be transferred to the State Legal Service Authority, Uttar Pradesh.