1 W.P.No.3784/11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.3784 OF 2011. City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Limited, through its Administrator, Cidco Office, Aurangabad. ... Petitioner. Versus 1. The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (Compliance), Sub Regional Officer N-1, CIDCO, Aurangabad. 2. The Union of India, through its Principal Secretary, Ministry of Labour Welfare, New Delhi. ... Respondents. ... Mr.A.S.Bajaj, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.K.B.Choudhari, Addl. Govt. Pleader for Respondents. ... CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 12.10.2011. 2 W.P.No.3784/11 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing. 3. In the present petition, the order passed by the Employees Provident Fund Tribunal, New Delhi, is assailed. According to Mr.Bajaj, learned counsel for the petitioner, the appellate authority has not taken into consideration the case of the petitioner that the activity of sweeping and cleaning has been brought within the realm of the office of the Provident Fund by virtue of the notification issued in the year 2001. The present liability which is sought to be saddled on the petitioner is of the year 1995 to 2001. When the notification itself has been introduced in the year 2001, the liability can not be fastened on the petitioner in respect of the year 1995 to 2001. The learned counsel further contends that the same amount is also sought to be recovered from the contractor and 3 W.P.No.3784/11 some amount has also been recovered. The Respondent can not prosecute dual proceedings i.e. against the petitioner, so also against the contractor for the same amount. 4. Mr.Choudhari, learned counsel for the Respondent submits that the petitioner is liable to pay contribution towards the Provident Fund in respect of the employees engaged in sweeping and cleaning activity through the contractor as a principal employer. The issue about the applicability of the act is raised for the first time in the present Writ Petition. So also the issue that the recovery is also sought to be made from the contractor is not raised before the appellate authority or the assessing authority. In light of that, no error can be found in the judgment of the appellate Tribunal. 5. With the assistance of the learned counsel, I have gone through the judgment. On perusal of the judgment of the appellate Tribunal, it no where transpires that the Tribunal has dilated anything upon the 4 W.P.No.3784/11 applicability of the notification issued in the year 2001 covering the employees engaged in sweeping and cleaning activity. It appears that the present petitioner had filed an application to produce additional documents stating that the notification has been issued in the year 2001. Suffice it to observe that there is no discussion on the applicability of the Act prior to the year 2001 in the impugned judgment. 6. It would be appropriate to relegate the parties before the appellate Tribu8nal, giving them opportunity to put forth their case. 7. In the result, the impugned order is quashed and set aside. The parties are relegated to the appellate Tribunal. The appellate Tribunal shall consider the case of the petitioner as put forth including the aspect of the applicability of the Act to the present case prior to 2001 and shall also consider other points raised by the parties. 8. Rule is accordingly made absolute in 5 W.P.No.3784/11 above terms. However, there shall be no order as to costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) asp/office/wp378411