1 W.P.No.5871/11. UNREPORTED IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.5871 OF 2011. Lokvikas Sahakari Bank Ltd., Plot No.10, Seven Hills, Jalna Road, Aurangabad, through its Chief Executive Officer - Deorao Jairam Bansod, Aged 52 years, Occ.Service. ... Petitioner. Versus 1. The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner and Recovery Officer, Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Sub-Regional Office, Plot No.2, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhavan, Cidco, Aurangabad. 2. The Special Recovery Officer/Enforcement Officer, Employees' Provident Fund Organisation, Sub-Regional Office, Plot No.2, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhavan, Cidco, Aurangabad. ... Respondents. ... Mr.R.N.Dhorde, advocate holding for Mr.V.R.Dhorde, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.K.B.Choudhari, Addl.Govt. Pleader for the Respondents. 2 W.P.No.5871/11. ... CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 08.08.2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing. 3. The order U/s 7-A of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 was passed against the present petitioner. The present petitioner filed a review U/s 7-B of the said Act. The same was rejected. Against that the present petitioner filed Writ Petition before this Court. This Court allowed the Writ Petition and directed the authority before whom the Review Petition U/s 7-B of the Act, was pending to consider the same, as per observations made in the said Writ Petition. Thereafter, the authority i.e. the present Respondent No.1 3 W.P.No.5871/11. rejected the said review. Aggrieved thereby, the present Writ Petition has been filed. 4. I have heard Mr.R.N.Dhorde, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.K.B.Choudhari, learned Addl. Govt. Pleader for the Respondents. 5. It was contended by Mr.Dhorde, learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in a case of "Indian Banks Association Vs. The Workmen of Syndicate Bank and others" reported in AIR 2001 Supreme Court 946, to contend that the pigmy agents are not the employees. The commission which they get are not the wages. The said judgment was not at all considered by the authority while deciding the said review. Even the written submissions were not considered. 6. Mr.Choudhari, learned counsel for the Respondents contends that the said decision of the Apex Court in a case of "Indian Banks Association Vs. The Workmen of Syndicate Bank and others" referred supra was under the Industrial 4 W.P.No.5871/11. Disputes Act. The definition of workmen under the said Act can not be equated or imported for the purpose of the present statute. According to the learned counsel, the pigmy agents come within the ambit and purview of the definition of workmen. 7. When the authority is considering the review application and rejecting it, it has to give reasons. If the authority comes to the conclusion that there is an error apparent on the face of record or that the grounds raised by the petitioner are not sufficient to review the order then it has to state in the order. From the impugned order, it appears that the authority was considering the review on merits but has nowhere discussed about the judgments referred by the present petitioner. He has only observed that he agrees with the observations of the squad of E.O. and the contention of the establishment is to be rejected. 8. The authority can not simply rely on the report of the squad. When the judgments are 5 W.P.No.5871/11. referred before it, it has to apply his mind and give reasons, either for accepting or not accepting the contention. The reasons are the lifeline of any quasi judicial order. The reasons depict the application of mind of the said authority. The order is bereft of any such reason. 9. In view of the above, I am inclined to relegate the parties to the Respondent No.1 to decide the proceedings U/s 7-B of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 afresh. 10. In the result, the Writ Petition is partly allowed. The petitioner is relegated to the Respondent No.1. The Respondent No.1 after giving an opportunity to the petitioner shall decide the proceedings U/s 7-B of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 afresh. 11. Rule accordingly made absolute in above terms. However, there shall be no order as to 6 W.P.No.5871/11. costs. The petitioner shall appear before the Respondent No.1 on 29.8.2011. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) asp/office/wp5871.11