THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MADAN B. LOKUR AND THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR W.A. No. 84 OF 2011 DATED:15-12-2011 Between: Andhra Pradesh Heavy Machinery & Engineering Ltd., a subsidiary of Singareni Collieries Co Ltd., (A Government Company) at Kondapalli – 521 228, Krishna District, rep., by its authorized signatory … Appellant And The Employees Provident Fund Organisation, rep., by its Regional Provident Fund Commissioner – II, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhavan, 3rd lane, Krishna Nagar, Guntur – 522 006 and two others … Respondents THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MADAN B. LOKUR AND THE HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL No.84 OF 2011 JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Shri Madan B. Lokur) 1. The appellant is aggrieved by an order dated 15-07-2010 passed by a learned single Judge in Writ Petition No. 12537 of 2008. 2. The appellant was aggrieved by an order dated 13-05-2008 passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner – II, Guntur under Section 7-A of the Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short ‘the Act’). By the order dated 13-05-2008, the appellant was required to pay an amount of Rs.38,717/- towards provident fund dues for the period from December 2001 to November 2005. 3. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant preferred a writ petition. By the order under appeal, the learned single Judge was of the view that it would be more appropriate for the appellant to approach the Employees’ Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal. The learned single Judge gave six weeks time to the appellant to file an appeal and also directed that if an appeal is filed within the time prescribed, the appellate Tribunal will consider the appeal on merits and dispose it of in accordance with law. 4. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant is now before us. 5. We do not find any error in the view taken by the learned single Judge requiring the appellant to file a statutory appeal. There is a procedure laid down under the Act and we do not see any reason why that procedure should be bypassed. 6. Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal. The miscellaneous application is also dismissed. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant says that 75% of the amount has already been deposited with the authorities. 8. Two weeks time is given to the appellant to file an appeal. MADAN B. LOKUR, CJ SANJAY KUMAR, J 15-12-2011 ks