1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 7272 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. WRIT PETITION NO.: 7272 OF 2010 *** 1. Advocate Shri Upadhye contends that during inquiry under section 7-A of Employees Provident Funds (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1952 [hereinafter, EPF & MP Act, 1952], the petitioner had specifically demanded information about Provident Fund Contribution collected from principal employer viz. CIDCO but neither Enforcement Officer nor CIDCO authorities produced that information. The matter was prosecuted in absence of that data and an adverse order under section 7-A leveling liability of about Rs.15 Lacs came to be passed. That order was then questioned before Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred as EPFA) in an appeal under section 7-I of EPF & PM Act, 1952. During pendency of that appeal, the petitioner has deposited amount of Rs.5 Lacs as he was directed to deposit 30% of the 2 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 7272 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. amount claimed under section 7 '0' of the 1952 Act. He further contends that EPFAT has not considered this aspect and has only decided the issue of coverage when petitioner has come up with a case that the total number of employees with him was less than 20 and he has opted voluntarily for coverage. Advocate for the department contends that after giving necessary opportunity the impugned order has been passed and the Appellate Authority has also looked into the challenge, as raised. 2. Perusal of Appellate order dated 26th March, 2010 reveals that it does not make reference either to CIDCO or then to the demand of the relevant data by petitioner. The impugned order proceeds only as if question of coverage is only to be resolved. 3. In the circumstances, interest of justice can be met with by directing the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs.5 Lacs more with Respondent. Shri Upadhye submits 3 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 7272 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. that the said amount will be deposited within a period of six weeks from today. Accordingly, subject to such deposit with Respondent, the impugned order passed by Appellate Authority on 26th March, 2010 and the order dated 14th June, 2004 passed by the Respondent are quashed and set aside. After the amount is so deposited within six weeks as mentioned above the competent authority shall give petitioner fresh opportunity of hearing. If any data or documents are to be summoned, the authority will exercise its powers in that respect and after perusal of that data and documents pass fresh orders in the matter. The fresh order shall be passed as early as possible and in any case 31st October, 2011. The petitioner shall appear before competent authority on 2nd May, 2011 and shall abide by its further instructions in the matter. 4. If the amount is not so deposited, the 4 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 7272 OF 2010 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. authority shall be free to recover the entire balance amount as per impugned order dated 14th June, 2004. 5. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No costs. [B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, J.] Dated:08/04/2011. ans/7272