1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.445 OF 2010 in W.P.NO.1334 OF 2010 (D) M/s Shiv Oil ..vs.. The Asstt.Provident Fund Commissioner. LETTES PATENT APPEAL NO.448 OF 2010 IN W.P.NO.1345 OF 2010 (D) M/s Shiv Pipes ..vs.. The Asstt.Provident Fund Commissioner. =-=-==-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Mr.A.P.Wachasundar,Adv. for the appellant. Mr.Parihar Adv. for the respondent. C ORAM : J.P.DEVADHAR AND A.B.CHAUDHARI, JJ. DATED : 12th October, 2010. Heard. These Letters Patent Appeals are against the impugned orders of remand. Mr.Wachasundar, learned counsel for the appellant, has made the following submissions. (i) The learned Single Judge, who had issued notice before admission in the petition could not have disposed of the writ petition finally without making a formal order of rule and making service of rule on the appellant within 14 days as contemplated by Rule 5 of Chapter XVII of the Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1960. (ii) There was no case for making remand as has been done by 2 the learned Single Judge and at any rate the same was without giving an opportunity of hearing to the appellant. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent opposed the appeal. Having heard the learned counsel for the rival parties, it is not necessary for us to answer the first submission by recording any separate reasons since the very first paragraph in the judgment of the learned Single Judge is eloquent in answer to the said submission. We quote the very paragraph of the order of the learned Single Judge passed in Writ Petition No. 1334 of 2010, which reads thus : “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, learned counsel on behalf of Shri A.P.Wachasundar, learned counsel appearing for respondent is again seeking time to argue the matter, as Shri Wachasundar, is not available. Shri Anoop Parihar, learned counsel for the petitioner is opposing the request.” Now, taking into consideration the second submission, we find that the learned Single Judge has given reasons for making remand. We refrain from repeating those reasons here but we would like to quote those reasons appearing in Writ Petition No.1334 of 2010, hereunder. 3 “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 identify of workers arose, fresh inquiry under Section 7-A or a remand could have been considered” For the above reasons, therefore, we are fully in agreement with the reasons adopted by the learned Single Judge for making remand. In the result, we do not find any merit in these Letters Patent Appeals. The same are, therefore, dismissed. At this stage, Mr.Wachasundar, learned counsel for the appellant, makes a prayer for extension of interim relief for another eight weeks. We reject the said prayer. JUDGE JUDGE. pzc 4