1 W.P.No.6865/11 UNREPORTED IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.6865 OF 2011. M/s Arco Transport Company, A Partnership firm, Tukaram Shripat Compound, Ajanta Road, MIDC Area, Jalgaon, Dist.Jalgaon through its Partner Mohammed Rafique Abdulla Patni, Age 43 years, R/o Tukaram Shripat Compound, Ajanta Road, MIDC area, Jalgaon,Dist.Jalgaon. ... Petitioner. Versus 1. The Presiding Officer, Employees Provident Funds Appellate Tribunal, Scope Minar, Core-II, 4th floor, Laxmi Nagar, District Centre, Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi-110 092. 2. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Sub-Regional Office, P-11, Bhavishya Nirvah Nidhi Bhavan, MIDC, Satpur, Nashik-422 007. 3. Enforcement Officer, Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Sub-Regional Office, P-11, Bhavishya Nirvah Nidhi Bhavan, MIDC, Satpur, Nashik-422 007. ... Respondents. 2 W.P.No.6865/11 Mr.S.R.Patil, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.K.B.Choudhari, Addl.Govt. Pleader for the Respondent Nos.2 and 3. ... CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 12.09.2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard. 2. At the out-set, Mr.Patil, learned counsel seeks leave to delete Respondent No.1. 3. Respondent No.1 is deleted at the risk of the petitioner. 4. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing. 5. The Respondent No.2 had passed an order U/s 7-A of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. The same was 3 W.P.No.6865/11 assailed before the appellate authority. The appellate authority confirmed the order. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner had filed the Writ Petition before this Court. This Court vide its order dated 27.4.2011 passed in W.P.No. 1094/2011 and W.P.No.1544/2010, directed the appellate authority to consider certain aspects as detailed in the said judgment. Thereafter, the appellate authority heard the parties and remanded the matter back to the Respondent No.2. Aggrieved thereby, the present petition is filed. 6. Mr.Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court had specifically in para 8 had directed the appellate authority to decide about the employment of a casual labour to take care of a temporary emergency beyond control of establishment and whether facts in the present matter warranted grant of such employment. Inspite of the said directions, the appellate authority has not dealt with the aspect of cartage, door delivery charges. In such circumstances, the appellate authority has failed to adhere to the directions 4 W.P.No.6865/11 issued by this Court. On that count the order is illegal. 7. Mr.Choudhari, learned counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 submits that the Respondent No.2 would consider all the aspects of the matter as the matter is remanded for fresh disposal. Even the petitioners admit the payment of watchman charges and the liability to pay the provident fund on the same. When the matter is remanded back the assessing authority would consider all the aspects of the matter. 8. No doubt, the appellate authority has not commented anything about the liability of the petitioner to pay in respect of cartage, door delivery charges though this Court had directed it to consider the same. However, when the matter is remanded back, the parties will have an opportunity to put forth their grievance on each and every aspect of the matter and the said authority before whom the matter is remanded back shall consider each and every aspect of the matter. Needless to state that the authority 5 W.P.No.6865/11 shall also consider the liability of the petitioner vis-a-vis the right of Respondents to recover the amount under the head of cartage, door delivery charges. Though the appellate Tribunal has not directed in this regard, still, as the said issue is required to be adjudicated and this Court had also directed vide its order passed in W.P.No.1094/2011, the Respondent No.2 while dealing with the matter shall consider the said aspect also. The petitioner has admitted the payment of the watchman charges. This aspect will also be taken into consideration by the authority. 9. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of with aforesaid observations and directions. 10. Needless to state that 50% of the amount deposited by the petitioner pursuant to the orders passed by this Court in earlier Writ 6 W.P.No.6865/11 Petition, shall be adjusted in the dues, if any. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) asp/office/wp6865.11