1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.495 OF 2008 HBL Global Pvt.Ltd. ..Petitioner. V/s Union of India & Ors. ..Respondents. Mr.C.U.Singh, Sr.Counsel a/w.Mr.P.S.Raju & Mr.S.Pandey for petitioner. Mr.D.A.Dube for Union of India-Respondent No.1. Ms.Bharucha for respondent Nos.2 and 3. CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J DATE : MARCH 19, 2008. DATE : MARCH 19, 2008. DATE : MARCH 19, 2008. P.C. : P.C. : P.C. : 1. Heard Counsel for the Petitioner and Respondent Nos.2 and 3, who are the contesting Respondents. Attempt to serve the Respondent No.1 was made, but it appears that the concerned officer declined to accept the service on the ground that the contesting Respondents are Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 only. Be that as it may, the relief that needs to be considered in the present Petition can be resisted only by Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and not Respondent No.1. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Ms.Bharucha waives notice for Respondent Nos. 2 and 2 3. Notice to Respondent NO.1 is dispensed with being formal party for the nature of relief that is granted under the present Order. 3. By this Petition, the Petitioner has asked for setting aside the Order dated 27th September, 2007 and dated 2nd January, 2008 passed by the Respondent No.2. It is fairly accepted that the said Orders are appellable orders. It is also accepted that the Petitioner had already resorted to Appeal against the said Orders. However, the Petitioner is pursuing the relief in this Petition on the assertion that the Appellate Authority is unavailable for hearing Appeal, much less for grant or non-grant of interim relief during the pendency of the Appeal. The circumstances in which that situation has arisen, being fortuitous circumstance; for it is common ground that there is no fixed court room available for hearing of the Appeal arising from the Order passed by the Respondent No.2 under Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. In that sense even if the Petitioner has resorted to statutory remedy of appeal, that remedy has been made meaningless due to unavailability of the forum. For which reason, it has become necessary for the Petitioner to approach this Court for 3 appropriate direction. 4. Having regard to the peculiar circumstances, in my opinion, instead of examining the correctness and validity of the two orders passed by the Respondent No.2, which are put in issue in this Writ Petition, on its own merits, the appropriate course is to grant interim relief to the Petitioner to operate till the Appellate Authority finds time and place to proceed with the hearing of the pending Appeal. 5. It will be open to the Appellate Authority to straightaway consider the pending Appeal finally or continuation of Interim Relief, subject however to giving opportunity to the Petitioner of fair hearing on the issue of grant or non-grant of interim relief. Till such time, arrangement ordered by this Court vide Order dated 29th February, 2008 shall continue to operate. 6. The Petition can be disposed of by issuing such direction without entering into any other controversy. All questions in the pending appeal will have to be addressed on its own merits in accordance with the law. 4 7. It is once again made clear that granting of interim relief to the Petitioner by this Order is not an expression of opinion on the merits of the controversy or for that matter the Interim Relief granted by this Court to be continued further or to be vacated or modify subject to such conditional order to be passed by the Appellate Authority. All questions in that behalf will have to be considered on its own merits. The Appellate Authority shall give prior intimation to the Petitioner as well as the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 about the date of hearing of the Appeal and/or the consideration of the Interim relief, as the case may be, on which date, it may proceed to pass appropriate orders, as may be advised. 8. Till appropriate order is passed after hearing parties, the arrangement directed under Order dated 29th February, 2008 shall continue to operate between the parties. 9. Petition disposed off on the above terms with no order as to costs. (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J)