IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10333 of 2006 M/S NAGARMAL RAM PRAKASH THROUGH ITS PROPRITER RAM PRAKASH RUNGTA AT. PO- NAUGACHIA DISTT- BHAGALPUR--- PETITIONER Versus 1. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAWAN, R. BLOCK, PATNA 2. THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, SUB-REGIONAL OFFICE OF THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION ADAMPUR, BHAGALPUR 3. FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA, REGIONAL OFFICE, PATNA---- RESPONDENTS ----------- 2 9.1.2009 Interlocutory Application No.6878 of 2008 is an amendment petition challenging an order dated 22.8.2008 which has been passed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Bhagalpur in purported exercise of power under section 7A of the Employees Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provision Act, 1952. I,.A. is allowed. Heard learned counsel for the parties. By way of a supplementary affidavit petitioner has brought on record annexure-7 which is impugned in the present writ application now as well as the order dated 18.8.2008 contained in annexure-8 which has been passed by the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in the case of M/s Radhey Shyam Sharma vrs. APFC, Kolkata & Others in Appeal ATA Nos. 225(15) 2007. According to learned counsel for the petitioner the Tribunal in an identical situation and manner held that the establishment of the petitioner cannot be held responsible with regard to casual worker or Coollies who are engaged in loading and unloading operation. His submission that the competent authorities have passed the order dated 22.8.2008 - 2 - ignoring a judicial order in this regard. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Provident Fund Commissioner states that there may not have been an occasion for the concerned authority to take note of 18th August, 2008 order since the same was not produced by the petitioner. The submission made on behalf of the respondents does not impress this Court Taking into consideration the order dated 18th August, 2008 contained in annexure-8, annexure-7 is quashed. The matter is remanded back to the authority for fresh adjudication who shall render his opinion keeping in mind the order dated 18th August, 2008 of the appellate tribunal as well as the communication dated 9th December, 2004 which is annexure-6 to the supplementary affidavit. This writ application is allowed. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)