1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR C.A.Z.NO. 459/2009 IN L.P.A.ST.NO. 8473/2009 IN W.P.NO.666/2009 ( The Asstt. Provident Fund Commissioner .vrs. M/s. Triveni Construction ) C.A.Z.NO. 461/2009 IN L.P.A.ST.NO. 8475/2009 IN W.P.NO.669/2009 ( The Asstt. Provident Fund Commissioner .vrs. M/s. Malkoji Maharaj ) C.A.Z.NO. 466/2009 IN L.P.A.ST.NO. 8477/2009 IN W.P.NO.670/2009 ( The Asstt. Provident Fund Commissioner .vrs. M/s. Tuljai Kamgar Sahakari ) 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 AND F.M. REIS, JJ. DATED : AUGUST 14, 2009. Heard Shri Anoop Parihar, learned Counsel for the applicant. By all these applications, prayer by Provident Fund Department is to condone delay in filing Letters Patent Appeal against the order of learned Single Judge dated 29.04.2009 passed in Writ Petition Nos. 666/2009, 669/2009 and 670/2009. The learned Single Judge has upheld the order of the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, granting exemption to the respondent – Contractors from depositing the amount as a condition precedent for entertaining the appeal under Section 7 [I] of the Employees Provident Fund and Misc. Provisions Act, 1952. The Appellate Tribunal found that prima facie identity of alleged beneficiary was not established by the department. The learned Single Judge has maintained that finding. 2 The orders granting exemption are dated 13.08.2008 and 27.10.2008. Hearing of the appeal on merits was not stayed. It is therefore, obvious that by now the appeals might have been decided. In any case there is no point in further postponing the consideration of appeals on merit, because of concurrent orders. We therefore, direct the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal to decide the appeals, if not already decided, as early as possible and in any case by 31.10.2009. Though Shri Anoop Parihar, the leaned counsel for the applicants is vehemently arguing to show that the waiver of condition of pre-deposit is uncalled for, in the facts mentioned above, we are not inclined to look into the matter at this stage. However, it is made clear that this waiver and the orders passed shall not be cited as precedent in any other matter. In view of this, all the applications are disposed of as infructuous. Needless to mention that the Letters Patent Appeals are also disposed of. No cost. JUDGE JUDGE Rgd.