THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.21391 of 2009 Dated 14th July, 2011 Between: Andhra Pradesh State Agro Industries Development Corporation Limited …Petitioner And The Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal (Ministry of Labour and Employment) Government of India, Scope Minar, Core-II, 4th Floor, Laxminagar District Centre, Laxminagar, New Delhi and others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Sri G.Vidyasagar Counsel for respondents: Sri R.N.Reddy The Court made the following: ORDER: At the interlocutory stage, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition is filed for a certiorari to quash order, dated 20.11.2008, in A.T.A.No.165(1)/2005, of respondent No.1, whereby it has rejected the petitioner’s appeal filed under the provisions of the Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short ‘the Act’). The petitioner is a State owned Corporation, which suffered an order of determination in proceedings No.AP/3300/Enf.CI-8/Z-27/ 2004/9530, dated 29.01.2004. It is the pleaded case of the petitioner that assailing the said order, it has filed a statutory appeal under Section 7-I of the Act, which is registered as A.T.A.No.165(1)/2005 before respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 by the impugned order rejected the said appeal on the short ground that what was challenged by the petitioner in appeal is the order, dated 20.01.2005, passed by the Recovery Officer in pursuance of the order of determination and therefore, the appeal was not maintainable. At the hearing, Sri G.Vidyasagar, learned counsel for the petitioner, invited this Court’s attention to the relief claimed in paragraph-9 of the appeal filed by the petitioner before respondent No.1 which reads as under: “It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to call for the records pertaining to Proceedings No.AP/3300/Enf.CI-8/Z-27/2004/9530, dated 29.01.2004 issued by the respondents and set aside the same as illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and principles of natural justice and grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and appropriate in the circumstances of the case.” In paragraph-10, the petitioner sought for stay of further recovery of the amounts in pursuance of warrant of attachment of movable property, vide proceedings No.AP/3300/R.Cell/ RC.No.92/04, dated 20.01.2005. Sri R.N.Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents, however, invited the Court’s attention to paragraph-3 of the appeal, wherein against column No.4 “subject in brief”, it is mentioned as - “the appeal is filed against the orders of the Recovery Officer, EPF, Hyderabad attaching movable property by order, dated 20.01.2005.” From the perusal of the appeal, it is evident that the substantive proceedings, which were under challenge, were proceedings No.AP/3300/Enf.CI-8/Z-27/2004/9530, dated 29.01.2004, under Section 7A of the Act and the petitioner sought for stay of all further proceedings in pursuance of the attachment order, dated 20.01.2005. No doubt, the petitioner omitted to refer to proceedings, dated 29.01.2004, in paragraph-3 of the appeal as noted above. That itself cannot be a determinative factor as regards the scope of the appeal before respondent No.1. As respondent No.1 has rejected the appeal only on the ground of non-maintainability by wrongly construing the scope of the appeal, the impugned order is set aside. The matter is remanded to respondent No.1 for disposing of the appeal filed by the petitioner afresh by treating the same as arising out of order, dated 29.01.2004, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Till such disposal, the balance payment, if any, due under order, dated 29.01.2004, shall not be recovered from the petitioner. Subject to the above directions, the writ petition is allowed. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, W.P.M.P.No.27791 of 2009 and W.V.M.P.No.1846 of 2011 are disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 14th July, 2011 VGB