1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY: NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.651/2011 THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER ..VS../M/S BILALA REFINARIES OIL MILL - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri Parihar, advocate for petitioner CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. D A T E : MARCH 21, 2011. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order passed by the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal on 30.6.2010, allowing the appeal filed by the respondent and setting aside the order passed by the Provident Fund Authority under section 7-A of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1952 directing the respondent to deposit the dues. On hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the First Appellate Authority was justified in allowing the appeal by relying on the judgment reported in 2002 Vol II CLR Page 349 and 1995 SCC (L & S) Page 162. The Appellate Tribunal upheld the contention of the respondent that the Hamals employed by the respondent to pack oil seeds in the gunny bags, were not the employees of the respondents. The Appellate Tribunal considered the fact that in the order passed under section 7-A of the Act of 1952, there was no 2 finding that the Hamals were exclusively employed by the respondent and they were not working for any other person. In such circumstances, the Tribunal rightly considered the cases reported in 2002 VOL II CLR Page 349 and 1995 SCC (L & S) Page 162 to allow the appeal filed by the respondent and for setting aside the order passed by the Provident Fund Authority under section 7-A of the Act of 1952. There appears to be no infirmity in the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal. The Hon. Supreme Court has reiterated a similar view in the judgment reported in 1994 Supplementary (3) SCC 567. For the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE SMP