1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.488 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO.621 OF 2010 (Royal Drinks Pvt. Ltd. vs. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner) __________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : J.P. DEVADHAR AND A.B. CHAUDHARI, JJ. DATED : OCTOBER 13, 2010 Shri Jaiswal, learned Counsel for the appellant, vehemently argued that there was no need for the learned Single Judge to remand the matter to the Authority in the Provident Fund Organization. According to the learned Counsel, the learned Single Judge has not found any fault with the order made by the Tribunal and in that case, there was no occasion to set aside the said order. He further submitted that there was no evidence, as has been found by the Tribunal, in the form of report of the Inspector, which could be utilized against the appellant and as 2 such, the remand order would result in filling up the lacunae. According to the learned Counsel, vide paragraph (7) of the impugned order, the learned Single Judge has allowed presence of persons, who had not appeared on the earlier occasion and, therefore, appellant employer should at least be allowed to object to the same. We have heard learned Counsel for the appellant at length and we have also gone through the order made by the Tribunal. At the outset, from the reading of the said order, we find that the Tribunal did find fault with the manner of enquiry that was conducted by the Inspector and in our opinion, that itself was the reason for the Tribunal to make a remand order, but the Tribunal failed to exercise that jurisdiction and simply set aside the order made by the Provident Fund Organization. It was the duty of the Tribunal to see that the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 is a welfare legislation and if the Inspector had made default in making proper enquiry, the matter was required to be remitted to the Organization for a fresh enquiry. That having not 3 been done by the Tribunal, in our opinion, the learned Single Judge has rightly taken recourse to make the order for remand. We do not find any error in making the impugned order. Insofar as second contention raised by Shri Jaiswal about persons, who were not there on the earlier occasion, we reserve liberty in favour of the appellant employer to object to such persons before the Authority during the course of enquiry. The Authority shall decide the matter after remand independently. The letters patent appeal is disposed of. JUDGE JUDGE khj