1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR CIVIL APPLICATION (W) NO. 3114 /2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 4800 /2010 (Assistant Provident Fund Commissionr, Nagpur vs. M/s Munis Forge Ltd. Nagpur ) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : 10 th DECEMBER, 2010. Learned counsel for the applicant/respondent states that at 1.30 p.m. this Court had granted adjournment. Learned counsel appearing for the original petitioner is not in a position to dispute this statement. Hence, without going into further controversy, statement made by the learned counsel for the applicant is accepted. In view of the position emerging, learned counsel is also heard on merits in Writ Petition No. 3520/2010. Reply placed on record along with CAW No. 3114 /10 is taken on file of Writ Petition No. 3520/2010. I have perused that reply. Advocate Sonbhadre, learned counsel argued that the EFPAT was satisfied that in fact the facts before it no case for application of the Act or then for working out the liability was made out. The impugned order passed by EPFAT does not show any such conclusion even prima facie recorded. The reasons sought to be incorporated in that order vide “reply” by respondent, therefore, cannot be sustained and accepted as a valid. In earlier order dated 23rd November 2010, 2 this Court had found that without hearing the petitioner- Department delay was condoned and the pre-deposit was waived. After hearing Advocate Sonbhadre I am satisfied that no case for recalling of that order or for substituting the same, is made out. Hence, the orders passed in Writ Petition on 23rd November, 2010 are maintained without any change. JUDGE sahare.