1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 3277/2009 ( Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner -: versus :- M/s. O.G. Bajaj Construction. ) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : NOVEMBER 06, 2009. Heard Ms. U.R. Tanna, learned counsel for petitioner and Shri A.P. Wachasunder, learned Counsel for respondent. Yesterday in Writ Petition No. 3122/2009, after hearing the same counsel on either side, this Court has quashed identical orders and directed the employer to deposit 75% of the amount as required by Section 7 (O) of the Act, however, the learned counsel for respondent, stated that if the orders passed yesterday is to be followed, he should be heard again. Accordingly he has been heard again. He states that the judgment delivered by this Court (by me) in case of Sandeep Dwellers (P) Ltd. vrs. Union of India (2006 [3] CLR 748] has been followed by the Appellate Authority. He further states that as the issue of identity of workers has been involved and similar appeals have been finally allowed, the Appellate Authority 2 has rightly exercised discretion. He argues that the respondent was not given appropriate opportunity and enquiry conducted was defective and there is no finding about the person being workman or functional integrality test. He further states that in similar Writ Petitions this Court has already dismissed identical writ petitions. He further points out that the Letters Patent Appeals filed against such dismissal of Writ Petition are also dismissed. Perusal of Section 7-A order shows that identity of 39 employees was established. The said aspect has not been considered by the Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal has on very first date of hearing dispensed with the statutory deposit without giving any statutory opportunity to the present petitioners. Though name of Shri R.R. Rajesh, Advocate has been mentioned as appearing for respondents before it, by the Appellate Tribunal, it has been shown that said Advocate is Standing Counsel and he had no instructions in the matter. He only accepted notice which was issued on that date and made returnable on 25.02.2009. It is therefore, apparent that the four points raised by learned counsel for respondent are not sufficient to take a different view of the matter. Learned counsel for respondent has also pointed out that the appeal is fixed by the Appellate Tribunal on Monday i.e. 09.11.2009 for final hearing, and it will be decided within 15 days. It is not necessary for this Court to look into the controversy because of the grievance of petitioner that said orders are being passed behind the back of the department. 3 Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. The respondent is directed to deposit 75% of the amount as required by Section 7(O). Rule accordingly. At this stage, learned counsel for respondent states that yesterday this Court has given time to the employer till 10.01.2010 to deposit the amount. The same time should be given to the respondent for the said purpose. Accordingly time till 10.01.2010 is given to respondent to deposit the amount under section 7(O) of the Act. JUDGE Rgd.