Dhirubhai Naranbhai Patel, J. - (1.) Notice upon the respondents to be served by direct/personal service.
(2.) It appears that previously also W.P.(C) No. 5273 of 2003 and W.P.(C) No. 6509 of 2005 were heard together and the following orders were passed: 1. Rule. 2. Counsel for respondents waives notice of Rule.
(3.) Interim orders earlier granted in both these writ petitions shall remain operative during the pendency and final hearing of these writ petitions. 3. The earlier petitions were also preferred because the applications for getting exemption under Sec. 17(1) of the Employee's Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 were preferred before the Provident Fund Commissioner, who refused to grant exemption and the said orders are under challenge before this Court, in which the aforesaid order has been passed.;