1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 3537 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. WRIT PETITION NO.: 3537 OF 2011 *** 1. Heard learned Advocate Mrs. S. D. Tambat-Dhumal for Petitioner, Mr. Chaudhari Standing Counsel for the department. She contends that Enforcement Officer in his report dated 1st September, 2010 found petitioners liable to pay total amount of Rs. 3,06,774/- and without prejudice to their contentions petitioners are ready and willing to deposit that amount. She further argues that determination of liability at Rs. 25,23,948/- by Respondent No.2 in the order dated 10th March, 2010 is arbitrary and hence direction of Appellate Authority to deposit 30% of that amount as condition precedent for entertaining appeal is liable to be quashed and set aside. 2. Shri Chaudhari points out that there was an earlier order under section 7-A of 2 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 3537 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 on 30th September, 20089 and as per that order petitioner is held liable to contribution in respect of employees shown under contractor. He contends that, that order has attained finality. 3. After hearing learned counsel for the parties I find that in present appeal filed before E.P.F.A.T. in A.T.A. No.282 (9) 2011 there is no challenge to order dated 30th September, 2008. The order of Respondent No. 2 dated 10th March, 2010 passed under 7-A makes reference to the said report of Enforcement Officer dated 1st September, 2010 and also to earlier orders under section 7-A dated 30th September, 2008. The E.P.F.A.T. has looked into the controversy and instead of directing the petitioner to deposit 75% of the amount as per provisions of section 7-O the direction is to deposit 30% thereof. 3 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.: 3537 OF 2011 Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court’s orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders. and Registrar’s orders. Hence, in challenge at the instance of petitioner I am not inclined to interfere with it. Needless to mention that the adequacy of this deposit can be looked into and propriety of the order can be gone into if it is assailed by present Respondent Nos.1 and 2. With these observations, petition is rejected. No costs. [B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, J.] Dated:05/05/2011. ans/3537