1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.7516 OF 2010 M/S SHIVAM SALES CORPORATION 84/4, Shivam Chambers, Opp. Zopadi Canteen, Savedi Road, Ahmednagar Through Proprietor Shri Bhagwat Shankarrao Hole, Age 48 years, Occ. Business, R/o As above. ..Petitioner VERSUS ASST P F COMMISSIONER (C), Sub Registrar Office, Nasik, P-11, MIDC Satpur, Nasik 422 007. ..Respondent ... Shri A.K.Tiwari, Advocate for petitioner and Shri K.B.Choudhari, Standing Counsel for respondent. ... CORAM : A.A.SAYED, J. Dated : November 23, 2010 ORAL JUDGMENT :- 1. Heard Shri A.K.Tiwari, learned Advocate for petitioner and Shri K.B.Choudhary, learned Standing Counsel for respondent. 2. Rule. By consent, Rule made returnable forthwith and the petition is taken up for final hearing. 3. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order dated 2 7.4.2010 passed by the Employees' Provident Funds Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, whereby, the appeal of the petitioner came to be rejected. The appeal was filed against the order dt. 19/23.11.2006 passed by the Assistant Provident Funds Commissioner, SRO, Nasik, whereby it was held that petitioner has failed to extend the provident fund benefits to its employees for the period from September 2003 to February 2006 and an amount of Rs.3,50,493/- was directed to be paid by the petitioner. In addition, the petitioner was also held liable to pay further damages and interest as per section 14-B and 7-Q of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. 4. It is the contention of the petitioner that they were never served with any notice and therefore, they were not able to appear either before the lower authority or appellate authority. Learned Standing Counsel for respondent disputes this position. 5. Be that as it may, in my view, looking to the nature of controversy involved, in the interest of justice, I am inclined to grant an opportunity to the petitioner by remanding the matter back to the lower authority i.e. Assistant Provident Funds Commissioner, SRO, Nasik on certain terms. In the circumstances, in my opinion, the following order would in the interest of justice. ORDER (i) Petitioner shall deposit an amount Rs.3,50,493/- with the 3 Assistant Provident Funds Commissioner, S.R.O., Nasik, within four weeks from today, after deducting the amount of Rs. 1,04,901/-, which is stated to have already been deposited with the said authority, thus aggregating to Rs.2,45,592/-. (ii) On deposit, the said Authority shall grant an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and shall decide the matter afresh in accordance with law within a period of six months from the date of deposit of the said amount. (iii) The petitioner shall through it's Proprietor appear before the said Authority on 20th December 2010 at 11 am and as such a formal notice in that regard shall stand waived. (iv) Order dated 19/23.11.2006 passed by the Assistant Provident Funds Commissioner, SRO, Nasik and order dated 7.4.2010 passed by the Employee's Provident Funds Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, are set aside. (v) If the said amount is not deposited within the stipulated period, the present petition shall stand dismissed and benefit of this order shall not be available to the petitioner 6. Rule is accordingly made absolute. No order as to costs. ( A.A.SAYED, J.) ... akl