1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA FIRST APPEAL NO. 234 OF 2003 M/s. Atlantic Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd., a Company incorporated under the provisions of the companies Act, 1956, Xeldem, Post, Quepem, Goa. By its Authorised Representive Shri Prakash Desai, Factory Manager. .... Appellant V/s 1. The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Officer of the regional Provident Fund, Commissioner, Sub regional Officer, 5th Floor, Junta-house, Panaji Goa. 2. The Union of India, through Secretary, Ministry of Labour & Welfare, having officer at New Delhi. .... Respondents Mr. G.K. Sardessai, Advocate for the Appellant. Mr. P.P. Singh, Advocate for Respondent No.1. Mr. J. Vaz, Central Govt. Standing Counsel for Respondent No.2. CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI & N.A. BRITTO, JJ. DATE : 1st SEPTEMBER, 2008 ORAL JUDGMENT : This First Appeal challenges the judgment and decree of the trial Court in Special Civil Suit being Special Civil Suit No. 62/93/A. The Special Civil Suit was instituted by the appellant/original plaintiff for declaration and consequential reliefs. 2 2. The claim in the suit proceeds on the basis that the 'Infancy Protection' contemplated by Section 16(1)(d) of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 has not been extended to the unit in question. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court and that is how the present appeal. 3. Repeatedly, the attention of the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant was drawn towards the provisions of the Act and, more particularly, those establishing a tribunal to take care of all grievances of the present nature. In such circumstances, and when merely because the tribunal was not functional at the relevant time, the appellant could not have maintained the suit. In any event, the suit is now dismissed on merits, are the objections on behalf of the Department. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.1 therefore prays for dismissal of the appeal. 4. After taking instructions, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant applied for leave to withdraw the suit filed in the trial Court, upon which the impugned judgment has been rendered. He seeks leave to withdraw the suit with liberty to approach the authorities under the Act including a tribunal, if any, and seek appropriate relief. All that he requests is that the contentions on merits may be kept open in the peculiar facts of this case and, more so, when appellants have deposited a sum of Rs. 10 lacs with 3 the Department and have furnished a Bank Guarantee for the remainder sum, which is still alive and in force. 5. The learned Counsel appearing for the Department while not opposing the application for withdrawal of the suit submits that appropriate orders may be made by this Court so as to protect the interest of the beneficiaries as the Act is a Beneficial and a welfare legislation. 6. Taking into account the facts and circumstances and finding that an authority under the Act having been already established and made functional, interest of justice would be sub-served if leave is granted to withdraw the suit filed for claiming the Infancy protection, with liberty to approach the authority set up under the Act. Further, we clarify that this order shall not be construed as condonation of delay in filing the proceedings. The appellant will have to point out the sufficient cause in not being able to file the proceedings within the period of limitation prescribed by the Enactment. It is for the appellant to make appropriate application in that behalf. However, while allowing the appellant to withdraw the suit and granting the above liberty, we clarify that observations and findings of the trial Court on merits shall not preclude the appellant from approaching the authorities and seeking their intervention with regard to its grievances regarding denial of Infancy benefit/protection. All pleas in that behalf are kept open and subject to the 4 above the judgment and order impugned in the present appeal is set aside. Needless to state that if the appellant does not approach the authorities within a period of two weeks from today, then the benefit of this order shall not be available to it and thereafter the appeal also will stand dismissed without any further reference to the Court leaving open to the Department all remedies to execute its orders. Appeal disposed of. S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. N.A. BRITTO, J. NH/-