Viney Mittal, J. - (1.) The petitioner is aggrieved against the order dated July 7, 2005 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Appellate Tribunal, whereby the petitioner has been required to deposit 50% of the amount in terms of Section 7 (o) of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') failing which the appeal of the petitioner was liable to be not entertained. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgement rendered by the Delhi High Court in (Old Village Industries Ltd. v. Asst. Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees' Provident Fund Organization and Anr.) to contend that
(2.) Since the order in question which was challenged in appeal was not an order passed under Section 7(o) of the Act but was passed under Section 14-B of the Act. Therefore, the provisions of Section 7(o) of the Act were not applicable and the petitioner could not be required to deposit the amount in question before the entertainment of the appeal.
(3.) After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the judgement relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, we are satisfied that the grievance made by the petitioner is wholly justified. It is not in dispute that order which has been challenged by the petitioner before the Appellate Tribunal was an order passed under Section 14B of the act and was not passed under Section 7-A of the Act. In these circumstances, in view of the law laid down in Old;