1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR L.P.A. NO.35 OF 2010. IN C.A.NO.2716 OF 2009 (DECIDED) THE WARDHA NAGARI SAHAKARI BANK LTD.THRO. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER. VS THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUNDS COMMISSIONER, NAGPUR. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Shri S.S. Ghate, Advocate for the appellant. Shri R. S. Sunderam, Advocate for Respondent. CORAM : A.H. JOSHI AND R. K. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 13th JANUARY, 2010. 1. Admit. Learned Advocate Mr. R. S. Sundaram, Standing Counsel for Respondent waives service, and appeal is taken up for final hearing. 2. Admittedly, provisions of Provident Fund Act apply to the establishment of the appellant. 2 3. The appellant has been served with show cause notice as to why the pigmy collection agents should not be treated as ‘employees’ and calling to pay contribution. 4. The petitioner is not ready to face adjudication and has, therefore, challenged the notice before learned Single Judge of this Court. 5. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge where while admitting the petition, the learned Single Judge did not grant interim order by way of blanket stay of further proceedings pending before the Respondent. 6. After hearing both sides, this Court is of considered view that the order passed by the learned Single Judge sufficiently protects the appellant. 7. Prima facie, appellant’s intention that no enquiry should be conducted is not based on any legal right or preposition whatsoever much less fair. 8. To urge that the assessment of possible liability should not at all be done has no legal foundation. 3 9. Appeal has no merit and is dismissed with costs. JUDGE JUDGE |Muley|