ORDER Narendra Nath Tiwari, J. 1. In this interlocutory application, the petitioner has prayed for stay of the order dated 14th January, 2008, whereby an order has been issued for attachment of the bank account of the petitioner. 2. It has been submitted that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have fasten the liability on the writ petitioner stating that they are Principal Employer, whereas respondent No. 3, M/s. Jagriti, is an independent charitable trust having no administrative control of the petitioner and that respondent No. 3 was declared charitable trust by the respondent No. 1 itself. However, the respondent No. 3 is liable to pay the contribution, if any, they are given separate registration and Provident Fund Code. The petitioner has got no concern with the employees of respondent No. 3. They are not the principal employer of the employees of the respondent No. 3. Surprisingly, by order dated 14th January, 2008, petitioner's bank account has been sought to be attached. 3. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 contested this interlocutory application and submitted that the petitioner is the Principal Employer and that they have been allotted code number by the department. So far as M/s. Jagriti, respondent No. 3, is concerned, it is working under the petitioner and as such the petitioner, as Principal Employer, is liable to pay the amount. No separate code number or account is required to be allotted to M/s. Jagriti, respondent No. 3. 4. Mr. Tapas Kabiraj, learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 3, on the other hand, submitted that M/s. Jagriti is a charitable trust and it was declared as such by the respondent No. 1 earlier. If there is any liability under the law, the respondent No. 3 is always ready and willing to pay such contribution of the employer. Respondent No. 3, M/s. Jagriti, with that intention also applied for separate Provident Fund Account/Code, but the respondent No. 1 refused to grant any such Code. 5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. The status and liability of the petitioner vis-a-vis respondent No. 3, as alleged by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, is to be finally decided in the writ petition. 5. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. The status and liability of the petitioner vis-a-vis respondent No. 3, as alleged by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, is to be finally decided in the writ petition. However, the respondent No. 3 has clearly admitted that whatever the dues are payable under the law, they are always ready to pay the same, as they are independent body, and the petitioner (TISCO) is not the Principal Employer. 6. In view of the stand taken by the respondent No. 3, the submission made on behalf of the petitioner appears to have substance and in that circumstance, I see no justification in attaching the bank account of the petitioner. 7. Accordingly, I.A. No. 169 of 2008 is allowed. Order dated 14th January, 2008, seeking attachment of the bank account of the petitioner is stayed until further order. This interlocutory application stands disposed of.