1 WP NO.317-10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.317 OF 2010 The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (2) ..Petitioner. V/s. M/s. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. ..Respondent. Mr. Suresh Kumar for petitioner. Mr. Bharat Goyal with P.K. Sonawane i/b. Haresh Mehta & Co. for respondent. CORAM : J.P.DEVADHAR, J. DATED : 27TH JULY, 2010. P.C. :- 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Rule, made returnable forthwith. 2. Learned Counsel for the respondent waives service. By consent of the parties, petition is taken up for final hearing. 3. This petition is filed to challenge the order passed by the EPF Appellate Tribunal dated 8th October, 2008. 4. By an order dated 7th August, 2008 passed under Section 7A of the EPF & Misc. Provisions Act, 1952, Regional Provident Fund Commissioner had held that an amount of Rs.2.66 crores is the provident fund dues payable by the respondent for the period from June, 2006 to 2 WP NO.317-10 June, 2008. 5. Challenging the aforesaid order, the respondent had filed an appeal before the EPF Appellate Tribunal and sought waiver of pre-deposit. In the meantime, in implementation of the order dated 7/8/2008 the entire amount was recovered. Thereafter, the EPF Appellate Tribunal by the impugned order directed the petitioner to retain 60% of the assessed amount and refund the balance amount. Once the amount quantified under Section 7A was recovered in execution, there was no question of granting waiver of pre-deposit. However, in my view, since the appeal is pending since 2008, it would be just and proper to direct the EPF Appellate Tribunal to dispose of the appeal itself. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of by passing the following order:- (i) The petitioner shall file its reply to the appeal pending before the EPF Appellate Tribunal (if not already filed) within a period of 2 weeks from today. (ii) The EPF Appellate Tribunal shall dispose of the appeal filed by the respondents being A.T.A. No.686(9) 2008 within a period of four weeks thereafter. 6. The rule is made absolute in the above terms with no costs. J.P. DEVADHAR, J.