IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1429 of 2009 M/S Rohini Enterprises through proprietor, Abhai Kumar Singh, Rasulpur Zilani, Chakkar Road, Muzaffarpur – 842001, Bihar Versus 1. The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation, Sub Regional Office, New Vakalatkhana Bhawan, Court Compound, Muzaffarpur 842001, Bihar 2. The Employees’ Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, Scope Tower, District Centre, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi 110092 3. Arthik Commercial Pvt. Ltd., Block ‘E’ Dhirubhai Ambani Knowledge City, Opposite Kapper Khairane Railway Station, Thane, Belapur Road, Kapper Khairane, Navi Mumbai 400 709 ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Sharwan Kumar Singh, Sr. Advocate For Respondents : M/S. R.S. Pradhan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rajeev Lochan, Advocate. ----------- 2. 06.02.2009 The petitioner is basically aggrieved by the order dated 26.11.2008 (Annexure-6) passed by the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi by which it has held that no case has been made out to waive the condition of pre-deposit of 75% of the determined amount completely, but, however, in the interest of justice the condition of pre-deposit of 75% was reduced to 40% of the assessed amount. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the entire amounts under the Employees Provident Fund Act have been deposited and the further demand only relates to certain incentives paid which according to him do not and cannot form part of the basic wages as defined under Section 2(b) of the Act. It is submitted by learned counsel that no reason has been assigned by the Tribunal for not granting the full waiver although a detailed memo of appeal was filed in this regard and in a similar matter by its order - 2 - dated 29.9.2008 (Annexure-8) in the case of one M/S Ravi Enterprises Vs. APFC, Muzaffarpur the Tribunal has granted full waiver. In support of his stand learned counsel relies upon two decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of M/s Bridge and Roofs Co. Ltd. Vs. Union of India and others: AIR 1963 SC 1474 and Manipal Academy of Higher Education Vs. Provident Fund Commissioner : (2008) 5 SCC 428. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the decisions relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the view that the petitioner has a good prima facie case to be argued before the EPF appellate Tribunal, as has been also held by the same Tribunal in its order dated 29.9.2008 with respect to the other matter referred to above. In the aforesaid circumstances, the order dated 26.11.2008 passed by the EPF appellate Tribunal is partly set aside and it is directed that there shall be full waiver of the condition of pre- deposit of 75% of the determined amount. The writ application is accordingly allowed to the extent as indicated above. S.Pandey (Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.)