1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 6149 OF 2010 (THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER...VS.. SADHANA KRISHI VIGYAN KENDRA) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr.Anoop Parihar, Advocate for Petitioner. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : JANUARY 10, 2011. Heard Mr. Parihar, the learned counsel for the petitioner. By this petition the petitioner impugns the order passed by the Presiding Officer, Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, dated 25th March, 2010 allowing an appeal filed by the respondent and setting aside the order passed by the petitioner under Section 14-B of the Employees Provident Fund Act, 1952. It is not in dispute that the respondent has voluntarily applied for coverage of the establishment and the establishment was covered from 01.07.1997. There was no dispute about the applicability of the Act to the establishment. It was the case of the respondent that due to non-allotment of code number there was delay in depositing the employees provident fund dues as the code number was admittedly allotted in the year 1999. In the aforesaid set of facts, the Presiding Officer, Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal did not commit 2 any error in setting aside the order passed by the petitioner authority under Section 14-B of the Act imposing the damages on the respondent. The Presiding Officer of the Tribunal rightly held that in this case the delay in paying the employees provident fund dues occurred due to non- allotment of the code number for a considerable time and it was due to the conduct of the authority that the respondent had delayed the payment of the employes provident fund dues. The order does not suffer from any error much less a jurisdictional error so as to interfere with the same in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. The writ petition, therefore, fails and hence, is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE RR..