Kishan Mal Lodha, J.
1. These two appeals arise out of the judgment dated 5-3-1982 of the learned single Judge by which he remanded the case back to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Jaipur ('the Commissioner' here in) and did not dismiss the writ petition filed by the petitioner in its entirety. D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 507 of 1982 (Union of India v. Jethalal has been filed by U.O.I. and the Commissioner praying that the judgment dated 5-3-1982 may be quashed to the extent by which the leaned single Judge issued directions to the Commissioner for reviewing its order dated 25 8-1980. D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 575 of 1982 Jethalal v. U.O.I, has been filed by the petitioner praying that the judgment dated 25-8-1980 may be quashed and the writ petition may be allowed in toto and further all the reliefs prayed for in the writ petition may be granted.
2. In view of the conclusion to which we have arrived at we do not consider it necessary to mention the facts in detail.
3. Learned counsel for the parties invited our attention to the judgment rendered in U.O I. v. Sethi Marbles & Stones Industries D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 603 of 1982, decided on 20-9-1985. The facts which gave rise to D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 603 of 1982 and the facts leading to these appeal are almost identical. The order passed by the learned single Judge dated 30-8-1982 which was assailed in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No, 603 of 1982 is almost very much similar to the judgment under these appeals. Not only that, the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties in these appeals are substantially the same which were raised in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 603 of 1982. It was put to the learned counsel for the parties whether on the basis of the reasons given in the judgment dated 20-9-1985 rendered in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 603 of 1982, these two appeals can be disposed of. Learned counsel agree to this.
4. We have considered the writ petition reply thereto, rejoinder to the reply and (he documents filed by the parties and also the order dated 5-3-1982 passed by the learned single Judge in SB. Civil Writ Petition No. 1992 of 1980 out of which two appeals arose. We have also considered the reasons given in the judgment dated 20-9-1985 in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 603 of 1982. In our opinion learned counsel are right when they submit that the reasons given in our judgment dated 20-9-1985 in D. B. Civil Special Appeal No. 603 of 1982 can be availed of for deciding these two appeals.
5. For the reasons mentioned in our judgment dated 20-9-1985 in D. B. Civil Special Appeal No. 603 of 1982, we modify the order dated 5-3-1982 of the learned single Judge as follows:
(1) The petitioner-respondent shall produce the material what ever he wants to produce in order to show that the petitioner-respondent's establishment is not covered by the 'industries' mentioned in Schedule-I to the Act or the non-factory establishment to which the Act has been made applicable under Section 3(b) of the Act and that the provisions of the Act were not applicable to the establishment of the petitioner during the relevant period within a month from today.
(2) that the Commissioner shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, two weeks after the production of the material, if any, to the petitioner in this connection. The Commissioner shall fix a date for oral hearing. After considering the material and the objections that may be raised by the petitioner respondent and decide : whether the establishment of the petitioner-respondent is covered by 'industry' mentioned in Schedule-I of the Act or the non-factory establishment to which the Act has been made applicable under Section 3(b) of the Act and that the provisions of the Act were applicable to the establishment during the relevant period.
If the Commissioner comes to the conclusion that the provisions of the Act are applicable to the petitioner respondents establishment during the relevant period, the order and directions contained in Order dated 25-8-1980 shall remain intact and thereafter, the petitioner-respondent will be bound to comply with them in accordance with the directions contained therein. In case, it is found that the provisions of the Act are not applicable to the petitioner-respondent in respect of the relevant period, the Order dated 25-8-1980 shall stand cancelled and there will be no liability on the part of the petitioner-respondent to make deposit in pursuance of that order.
6. The result is that D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 507 of 1982 is partly allowed and the judgment dated 5-3-1982 is modified to the extent indicated here in D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 575 of 1982 is dismissed.
7. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs of these appeals.