1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR W.P.NO.2297OF 2010 Hotel Lahori Bar and Restaurant ..vs.. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and anr. 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 : JUNE 16, 2010. Heard Mr.S.S.Voditel, Advocate for the petitioner and Ms U.R.Tanna, Advocate for respondent no.1. With consent of the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing. Advocate Voditel points out to the court that the amount as directed by respondent no.2 has now been deposited. He further states that as the amount could not be deposited, the appeal filed under Section 7(1) of the Employees Provident Fund Miscellaneous Provision Act itself has been dismissed. He further points that for non- compliance of the order dated 1/11/2010, the appeal was dismissed on 31/3/2010 and when the petitioner sought review of that order, the review has been rejected on 27/4/2010. According to him, in present situation, in the interest of justice, the appeal be restored back to file. Advocate Ms. Tanna, learned counsel for respondent no.1 points out that the provisions of predeposit were relaxed by permitting the petitioner to deposit 40% of 2 the amount and that order was not complied with. There was no reason assigned for non-compliance and hence the Tribunal has rightly passed orders on 31/3/2010. She therefore, contends that no case is made out for interference. I perused the records and the papers. It appears that the petitioner did not deposit the amount within stipulated time and hence the appeal was dismissed on 31/3/2003. Review was sought by the petitioner on 22/4/2010 and the same has been rejected on 27/4/2010. The petitioner there had basically urged that there was some miscommunication amongst the partners of the petitioner and hence the order could not be complied with. The learned counsel for the respondent is disputing this position. However, in the present situation an amount has been deposited with respondent no.1 and the directions issued by Employees Provident Appellate Tribunal on 11/1/2010 are complied with. I find that the petitioner is entitled to consideration of his grievance on merit. Hence, subject to payment of Rs.2000/- by the petitioner to the respondent in the matter, the order dated 27/4/2010 and 31/3/2010 are hereby quashed and appeal stands restored back for consideration on merits by the respondent/ Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal. The costs as directed above be deposited with respondent no.1 by 30/6/2010. After the costs are so deposited, the parties to appear before E.P.A.T. on 19/7/2010 and to abide by its further instructions in the matter. JUDGE 3 chute