:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1858 OF 2006 WRIT PETITION NO. 1858 OF 2006 WRIT PETITION NO. 1858 OF 2006 M/s. Aarke Corporation ..Petitioner versus Union of India & Ors. ..Respondents Mr. S. S. Pathak with Mr. T. R. Yadav for the Petitioner. Mrs. S. V. Bharucha for the Respondent No. 3. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. DATE : 22ND JANUARY, 2009. DATE : 22ND JANUARY, 2009. DATE : 22ND JANUARY, 2009. P.C. P.C. P.C. . Heard. Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2. The petitioner has challenged the Order of the Provident Fund Commissioner and Orders of the Appellate Authority holding that an amount of Rs.4,45,983/- is due from the petitioner as worked out on the basis of records furnished by the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the calculation is not in accordance with law since it does not take into account the number of employees who have retired and on whose :2: account the petitioner was not liable to make any contribution of provident fund. 3. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 submits that the calculation has been done on the basis of the record submitted by the petitioner as is apparent from the Order. According to the petitioner these records are not updated and do not take into account the number of people who have retired. 4. It appears that it is necessary in the interest of justice that this contention should be gone into since it goes to the root of the matter i.e. liability of the petitioner. However this contention was not gone into obviously because the petitioner did not appear at the hearing before the Commissioner. According to the petitioner, their request for adjournment was rejected and the order was passed exparte. It is true as pointed out by Ms. Bharucha that the matter was adjourned from time to time. However, it is a fact that the Commissioner passed exparte order eventually. Having regard to the nature of controversy, it is appropriate in the interest of justice to set aside the impugned orders and give opportunity to the :3: petitioner to put up its case. The parties are directed to appear before the Provident Fund Commissioner, Mumbai, on 11.2.2009. If the petitioner does not prosecute its appeal diligently, the Commissioner is free to dismiss the Appeal and pass appropriate orders. The amount deposited shall remain deposited till the final disposal of the Appeal. 5. Rule is allowed in the above terms. (S. A. BOBDE, J.) (S. A. BOBDE, J.) (S. A. BOBDE, J.)