IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO. 3069 OF 2004 WRIT PETITION NO. 3069 OF 2004 WRIT PETITION NO. 3069 OF 2004 M/s.Systech Ltd. and another. ... Petitioners. V/s. Union of India and others. ... Respondents. Darshan Mehta i/b. Dhruve Liladhar & Co. for the petitioner. S.M.Shah with Ms.Purnima Awasthi for the respondents. CORAM: V.C.DAGA and CORAM: V.C.DAGA and CORAM: V.C.DAGA and MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ. DATED: 17th February 2009. DATED: 17th February 2009. DATED: 17th February 2009. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: ---- ---- ---- . Heard. . Perused petition. 2. In this petition, the petitioners are aggrieved by the order of the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Pune dated 25th May, 2001. The statutory appeal under the provisions of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 ("Act" for short) has been filed. 3. At the time of filing of this petition i.e. on 30th April, 2004, it was stated at bar that the Tribunal was not functional as such petitioners could not get their stay application heard by the Appropriate Authority. This peculiar circumstance led this Court to entertain this petition. 4. This Court while admitting this petition for final hearing took into consideration provisions of sections 7-I to 7-O of the Act. Section 7-O declares that no appeal by the employer shall be entertained by the Tribunal unless he deposits 75% of the amount due from him as determined by an officer referred to in section 7A. The proviso, however, enables the Tribunal, for the reasons to be recorded in writing, to waive or reduce the amount to be deposited under the main provision. 5. While granting interim relief, this Court granted interim stay to the execution and implementation of the order dated 25th May, 2001 passed by the officer referred to in section 7-A of the Act on petitioners’ depositing with the said officer 50% of the amount due. 6. It is undisputed that the petitioners have not complied with the condition directing deposit of 50% of the dues vide order dated 30th April, 2004. Consequently, it was open for the respondent to execute the order passed by the officer referred to in section 7-A of the Act. 7. Today, we are informed by both parties that now the appellate authority has become functional. The appeal filed by the petitioners, which is pending before the appellate authority, can be considered along with application for stay. 8. In the above view of the matter, we do not propose to consider the issues involved in the petition on merits since the alternate remedy by way of appeal is available to the petitioners. Petitioners are, therefore, relegated to prosecute their remedy of appeal before the appellate authority. 9. Needless to mention that while considering stay application moved by the petitioners, the appellate authority shall take in to account the order passed by this Court dated 30th April, 2004 directing deposit of 50% amount as condition for stay and non-compliance thereof by the petitioners. All contentions on merit are kept open. 10. With the above observation, petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs. (MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.) (V.C.DAGA, J.) (MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.) (V.C.DAGA, J.) (MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.) (V.C.DAGA, J.)