1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. Writ Petition No.5207/2008 M/s. R.K.Packers ..vs.. Assitt.Provident Fund Commissioner, Nagpur. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Court's or Judge's Orders. Shri S. Ghate, Advocate for petitioner. Ms. Tanna, Adv. For sole respondent. CORAM : B. P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. Dated : 10th December, 2008. Heard Advocate Ghate for the petitioner and Advocate Ms. Tanna for sole respondent. The challenge is to the order dated 27/07/2007 passed under Section 7-A of Employees' Provident Fund Act. Advocate Ghate has stated that as the appeal under Section 7(I) could not be preferred within statutory time limit i.e. within 120 days, the Appellate Tribunal has lost its jurisdiction to condone the delay and hence, the writ petition is filed. He invited attention to the circumstances explained in the petition to substantiate his stand in this respect. He points out that in all records of respondent, even as per report of Enforcement Officer, there were only 12 employees. He contends that the establishment of petitioner there prima facie could not have been covered under the Employees' Provident Fund Act. 2 Advocate Ms. Tanna for respondent points out that number of opportunities were given to petitioner and the petitioner did not choose to appear and file reply. The coverage is found from 28/2/1995. It is further pointed out that the number of employees were in excess of 20 and therefore, only the Act is applicable. It is not necessary for this court to go into this controversy at this stage, because the report for the period from January 2005 to May 2007 produced by the petitioner as annexure along with the petition, shows that the number of employees were only 12. Learned counsel for the respondent points out that the demand under Section 7-A is for the period from February 1995 to May 2007. The impugned order, however, nowhere states what was the number of employees with petitioner in May 2007 or before that. Considering the position as on record, I am inclined to give one more opportunity to petitioner to place its case before the respondent. However, the same is subject to payment of costs of Rs.10,000/- to the respondent and also deposit 50% of the amount as demanded in the impugned order from it. The amount of costs and 50% amount of demand, as mentioned above, be paid to the respondent by 31/12/2008. If the amount is so paid, the respondent shall give one opportunity to the petitioner to appear before it and to contest the matter. It is made clear that the petitioner shall not seek any adjournment on that date and shall cooperate for expeditious 3 disposal of the matter. The respondent shall take a fresh decision on due enquiry under Section 7-A of the Employees' Provident Fund Act as early as possible and in any case by 15/2/2009. If it is found that the establishment of the petitioner can not be covered under Employees' Provident Act in that event, the amount of 50% deposit, shall be returned to the petitioner within one month thereafter. Rule accordingly. JUDGE Andurkar.