-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1037 OF 2008 Bhartiya Kamgar Sena ... Petitioner versus The Regional Commissioner of Provident Fund and others ... Respondents Mr.V.P. Vaidya for the petitioner. Mr. Suresh Kumar for respondent No.1. Mrs. Hutoxi Tavadia, instructed by Mr. Himanshu Kode, for respondent No.2. Mr. Naushad Engineer with Bhavik Manek, instructed by M/s. Wadia Ghandy & Company, for respondent No.3. CORAM: P.B. MAJMUDAR & A.A. SAYED, JJ. DATE: AUGUST 29, 2008. P.C. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties on speaking to the minutes of our order dated July 31, 2008. 1. In the cause title, the appearance of the Advocates has not been properly shown. The correct appearance is as shown above in the cause title. The cause title in the original order accordingly stands corrected. 2. The date of decision i.e. 31st July, 2008 is substituted by the date 1st August, 2008. -2- 3. It seems that there are mistakes in the operative part of the order. The correct order shall now be read as under: “This petition is filed by Bhartiya Kamgar Sena. The learned counsel for respondent No.1 states that if the petitioner makes a representation against respondent No.2 to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Sub-office Charkop (Kandivli), Mumbai-400 069, such representation shall be decided on its own merits. Considering the aforesaid statement of the learned counsel for respondent No.1, petitioner is permitted to make such a representation against respondent No.2 to the concerned authority giving particulars and factual aspects of the grievance latest within three months from today and on receiving such representation, the concerned authority i.e. the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Sub-Office, Charkop (Kandivli), Mumbai-400 069 is directed to take appropriate decision on the representation in accordance with law and in any case within a period of three months from receipt of such a representation. Whatever may be the decision taken on this representation, may be communicated to the petitioner without delay. 2. It is clarified that we have not expressed any opinion on -3- merits of the matter and all the contentions raised in the petition are kept open for both the sides. 3. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.” The original order accordingly stands corrected and is to be read as above. Ordered accordingly. P. B. MAJMUDAR, J. A.A. SAYED, J.