1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No. 1400/2010. M/s. Bellezza (India) Pvt. Ltd. -: versus :- Asstt. Provident Funds Commissioner Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : MARCH 26, 2010. Heard Shri Sunil Manohar, learned counsel for petitioner and Ms. U. Tanna, learned counsel for respondent. Contention is, as the P.F. dues are in respect of apprentices, the issue stands concluded by the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court and no dues can be recovered for them. The learned counsel contends that this contention raised while seeking waiver of pre-deposit has not been looked into and two irrelevant reasons are recorded and 50% of the demand is directed to be deposited. He further points out that because of this a review application was moved and when technically the review was not tenable, still the Appellate Tribunal has brought down the pre-deposit from 50% to 40%. According to the learned counsel as the impugned order shows total non application of mind, right of petitioner to have his entitlement considered is defeated. The learned counsel for respondent is supporting 2 the impugned order. During hearing it has transpired that the petitioner has got a hair cutting saloon. The learned counsel for respondent has pointed out that as per the inspection, petitioner has got about 22 regular employees while total strength of employees is 175 and remaining employees are shown as trainees. It is therefore apparent that at least at this stage prima facie it can be gathered that number of trainees is 7 times the number of regular employees. In this situation, though the Appellate Authority has not recorded proper reason for directing petitioner to deposit 40% of the demand as pre-deposit, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter in writ jurisdiction. Writ Petition is therefore, dismissed with no order as to cost. JUDGE Rgd.