*1* wp941-11.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.941 OF 2011 M/s.Holcim Services (South Asia) Ltd. .. Petitioner Versus Employees Provident Fund Organisation and Ors. .. Respondents Mr.A.N.Bukhari with B.V.Bukhari for petitioner Mr.S.Kumar for respondent No.2 Ms.Vaishali D. for RPFC (E & R), Thane present. CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. Date : 19th September, 2011. P.C.: 1 This petition was placed today and when a direction was issued that the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner – II (E & R), Regional Office, Mumbai – 2, who is respondent No.2 to this petition shall remain present with original records and files, it is stated that respondent No.2 is present in court and Mr.Suresh Kumar, after taking instructions from respondent No.2, who is present in Court, makes a statement that within ten days from today, she will forward a proposal of exemption under Para 27A of the EPF Scheme, 1952 read with section 17 of EPF Act to the respondent No.3 without raising any objections or recording any objections or recording any remarks but reporting compliance with the necessary Rules and Regulations and particularly of prescribed format for *2* wp941-11.sxw making an application seeking exemption. Thereafter the respondent No. 3 will place the same before the Central Board for Trustees. The board will take a final decision on this application as expeditiously as possible. This entire exercise be completed within three months from today. 2] This statement is accepted as undertaking to this Court. 3] At this stage, Mr.Bukhari learned Counsel appearing for petitioner invites my attention to para 79 of the scheme which reads thus:- “79. Special provisions relating to factories or other establishments in respect of which applications for exemption are received. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Scheme, the Commissioner may in relation to a factory or other establishment in respect of which an application for exemption under section 17 of the Act has been received, relax, pending the disposal of the application the provisions of this Scheme in such manner as he may direct.” 4] It is argued that in the light of the wording of this paragraph, until the application is considered in terms of para 27, the Commissioner should relax the provisions of the scheme. 5] Mr.Suresh Kumar on instructions from respondent No.2 makes a statement that the Regional P.F.Commissioner will examine the request for *3* wp941-11.sxw relaxation made by the petitioner, without insisting on a fresh application in that behalf being made but treating the petition itself and the pending application as a request to relax the provisions of the scheme and pass necessary orders thereon within two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order and pending decision on this application, the respondents will not initiate any coercive measures to recover P.F. Dues from the petitioner. The writ petition is disposed off in these terms. No costs. (S.C. Dharmadhikari, J)