1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 1334 OF 2010. (The Asstt. Provident Fund Commissioner -: versus :- M/s. Shiv Oil Industries, Amravati ) 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 : JULY 06, 2010. Matter is for final disposal and has been adjourned from time to time. On last occasion it was informed that the matter will be taken up on next date i.e. today. Ms. Srinath, leaned Counsel on behalf of Shri A.P. Wachasunder, learned counsel appearing for respondent is again seeking time to argue the matter, as Shri Wachasunder, is not available. Shri Anoop Parihar, learned Counsel for petitioner is opposing the request. Shri Parihar, learned counsel has pointed out that the respondent has accepted some liability in his appeal memo itself and that also is overlooked by the Appellate Authority. He also wants to show that the issuance of some 2 notice and its receipt is accepted by the respondent. I find that in paragraph no.6-g of the appeal memo the respondent has stated that he has received notice after due date. However, in paragraph no.6-e and 6-i, the said respondent has stated that his establishment had decided to comply with the provisions, instead of challenging the action. As rightly pointed out by Shri Parihar, learned counsel these aspects are not looked into by the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi while allowing the appeal filed by the respondent. The question - whether the liability was admitted and if it was admitted, whether the recovery to that extent could have been permitted, needed to be gone into. In any case, if dispute as to identity of workers arose, fresh inquiry under Section 7-A or a remand could have been considered. In this situation, I find the impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority unsustainable. The said order dated 27.07.2009 is therefore quashed and set aside. The proceedings ATA No. 537[9]2008 are restored back to the file of Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi for taking fresh decision in accordance with law. The parties shall appear before that Authority on 26.07.2010 and shall abide by its further directions in the matter. 3 Shri Parihar, learned counsel states that the respondent should be called upon to deposit some amount as condition precedent. The request can be made before the E.P.F.A.T. and it can consider it in the facts and circumstances of the case. In view of the above discussion, Writ Petition is partly allowed, with no order as to costs. JUDGE Rgd.