1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 670/2009 (The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Akola VERSUS M/s Tuljai Majur Kamgar Sahakari Sanstha Limited, Waghapur, Dist. Yavatmal) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri A. Parihar, counsel for the petitioner. Shri S.W. Sambre, counsel for the respondent. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : APRIL 29, 2009. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order passed by the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi on 13.08.2008 allowing an application filed by the respondent under Section 7-A of the Employees Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and granting total waiver to the respondent no.1 from making deposit of 75% of the amount due and payable. It is the case of the petitioner that in spite of providing several opportunities to the respondent, the respondent had not produced the relevant material before the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Akola. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Appellate Tribunal was not justified in granting exemption on the ground that there was no statement in the impugned order to 2 indicate that the beneficiaries are identified either by the Enforcement Officer or by the Inspector on spot inspection. Shri Sambre, the learned counsel for the respondent, however, took this Court through the order passed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner under Section 7-A of the Act to point out that several documents were produced by the respondent before the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner. It prima-facie appears from the impugned order passed by the Appellate Tribunal on 13.08.2008 as also the order passed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Akola on 05.08.2008 that no identification of the beneficiaries had been done in accordance with law and the assessment was also made on the basis of the record of outsiders, who had got the work done through the respondent. Though the Nagar Parishad, Yavatmal is a party to the proceedings before the Appellate Tribunal at New Delhi, the petitioner had not joined the Nagar Parishad, Yavatmal as a party to the petition till this date. It, therefore, appears from a perusal of the order passed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Akola as also the order passed by the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal that there is no error whatsoever in the impugned order passed by the Appellate Tribunal on 3 13.08.2008. Even otherwise, a period of nearly six months has lapsed after the passing of the impugned order and it is most likely that the appeal would be decided within a short time. In the result, the petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE