-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2342 OF 2005 Hotel Samudra ..Petitioner Vs. Assistant Provident Commissioner Employees Provident Fund Organisation Pune and Ors...Respondents ... Mrs.Meena H.Doshi for Petitioner Mr.Suresh Kumar for Respondent ... CORAM : B.H.MARLAPALLE,J. CORAM : B.H.MARLAPALLE,J. CORAM : B.H.MARLAPALLE,J. DATE : APRIL 21,2005 DATE : APRIL 21,2005 DATE : APRIL 21,2005 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard Mrs.Doshi, the learned counsel for the Petitioner. Perused the affidavit in reply filed by the Enforcement officer from the office of Respondent No.1. 2. Under section 7Q and 7A of the Employees Provident Funds and Misc. Provisions Act, 1952 (the P.F.Act for short) recoveries have been ordered against the Petitioner. The recoveries under Section 7Q of the Act amount to Rs.3,68,590/- and the recoveries under Section 7A of the Act, amount to Rs.13,00,896/-. It was submitted that the said recovery orders are exparte. The Review Application -2- filed, has been rejected. An appeal under Section 7I of the Act is pending before the Appellate Tribunal. An application for waiver as required under Section 7 O was filed in the pending appeal and by the impugned order dated 4.3.2005, the learned Presiding Officer has brought down the deposits from 75% to 50%. The learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that there was no case for recoveries at least under Section 7A of the Act and the said recovery of Rs.13,00,896/- is required to be quashed and set aside. This is an issue which is required to be decided in the pending appeal. The application for wavier as submitted by the Petitioner, has been perused by me and the averments made therein only related to the interlocutory orders passed by this Court and that the proceedings were admitted without giving any opportunity to the appellant. The lower appellate authority has exercised its discretion and reduced the statutory deposit from 75% to 50%. Unless the discretion exercised is without jurisdiction or perverse or patently erroneous, this Court would not find it appropriate to cause interference in such an order. It was submitted by Mrs. Doshi, the learned counsel for the Petitioner that calculations are based on purported figures of 102 employees while the establishment did not have any employees of its own. This is an issue which will have to be decided in the pending appeal by -3- verifying the record that may be submitted by the respective parties. Section 7O of the Act states that no appeal by the employer shall be entertained by the Tribunal until he has deposited 75% of the amount due from him as determined by necessary enquiry under Section 7A, provided that the Tribunal may, for the reasons to be recorded in writing, waive or reduce the amount to be deposited under this Section. The application submitted by the Petitioner did not make out a case for waiver and therefore, the Tribunal exercised its discretion to reduce the deposit amount to 50%. No fault could be found with the said order. 3. Hence, this petition fails and the same is rejected summarily. However, time to deposit is extended by another four weeks and it is made clear that the pending appeal shall be decided on its own merits and without being influenced by any observations made in this order or the order impugned in the petition. [ B.H.MARLAPALLE,J. ]