ORDER : H.K. RATHOD, J. 1. Heard learned Senior Advocate Mr. KS Nanavati with learned Advocate Mr. Bhushan B. Oza for petitioner and learned Advocate Mr. Niral R.Mehta for respondent PF Authority in these petitions. 2. In Special Civil Application No. 16257 of 2010, petitioner has challenged order passed by Provident Fund Authority under section 7A and other consequential orders as referred to in paragraph 10(B) and 10(C) of petition which are quoted as under: "10(B) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or directions quashing and setting aside the impugned orders under section 7 and all other consequential orders dated 9th 13th and 16th December, 2010 being Annexures F, H and J respectively. (C) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or directions directing the respondents, their agents and servants to consider the entire matter on merits afresh after hearing the petitioner on merits and give a reasoned order in writing within a reasonable time; " 3. In Special Civil Application No. 16224 of 2010, petitioner has challenged Show Cause Notice dated 13th December, 2010 as per Prayer made by petitioner in paragraph 9(B) and (C) of petition which are quoted as under: "9(B)Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or directions quashing and setting aside the impugned show cause notice and any other consequential orders; (C)Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or directions restraining the respondents, their agents and servants from taking any action pursuant to the show cause notice dated 13th December, 2010(Annexure D);" 4. Initially, aforesaid order under section 7A passed by PF Authority was challenged by petitioner filing Special Civil Application NO. 617 of 2009 but it was filed in registry of this Court on 17th December, 2008. Said Special Civil Application No. 617 of 2009 came to be disposed of by this Court on 29th April, 2010. Thereafter, Miscellaneous Civil Application NO. 3067 of 2010 filed for review came to be disposed of by this Court on 13.12.2010. 617 of 2009 but it was filed in registry of this Court on 17th December, 2008. Said Special Civil Application No. 617 of 2009 came to be disposed of by this Court on 29th April, 2010. Thereafter, Miscellaneous Civil Application NO. 3067 of 2010 filed for review came to be disposed of by this Court on 13.12.2010. In-between, show cause notice was issued by PF Authority dated 13th December, 2010. Thereafter, immediately, on 15th December, 2010, Review Application under section 7B was preferred by petitioner which was decided on 16th December, 2010. Thereafter, another petition being Special Civil Application No. 15059 of 2010 was preferred by petitioner which was decided by this Court on 16th December, 2010. Thereafter, petitioner has approached this Court by filing present two petitions. One is challenging show cause notice whereas another is challenging 7A Order as well as 7B Order and other consequential orders which have been issued by PF Authority. 5. Learned Advocate Mr. Niral R. Mehta for respondent PF Authority raised preliminary contention before this Court that against this challenge which is made by petitioner in these petitions, petitioner is having an alternative, effective and equally efficacious remedy of appeal under section 7-I of PF Act and therefore, these petitions are not maintainable on ground of having alternative remedy under PF Act. 6. At this occasion, learned Senior Advocate Mr. KS Nanavati for petitioner has raised contention before this Court that because of various proceedings filed by petitioner before this court, question of limitation will arise if they would now approach appellate Tribunal. 7. For filing appeal under section 7-I, provisions have been made under Rule 7 of The Employees' Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1997. Therefore, Rule 7 of said Rules is quoted as under: "7. Fee, time for filing appeal, deposit of amount due on filing appeal.- (1) Every appeal filed with the Registrar shall be accompanied by a fee of Rupees five hundred to be remitted in the form of Crossed Demand Draft on a nationalised bank in favour of the Registrar of the Tribunal and payable at the main branch of the Bank at the station where the seat of the said Tribunal situate. (2)Any person aggrieved by a notification issued by the Central Government or an order passed by the Central Government or any other authority under the Act may within 60 days from the date of issue of the notification/order prefer an appeal to the Tribunal. Provided that the Tribunal may, if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal within the prescribed period, extend the said period by a further period of 60 days. Provided further that no appeal by the employer shall be entertained by a Tribunal unless he has deposited with the Tribunal a Demand Draft payable in the Fund and bearing 75 per cent of the amount due from him as determined under section 7A. Provided also that the Tribunal may for reasons to be recorded in writing waive or reduce the amount to be deposited under section 7-O." 8. Therefore, in view of rule 7(2) of said Rules, 1997, for challenging order, appeal is required to be filed within 60 days from date of issue of order before Tribunal and further sixty days period is also provided in case of delay occurred in filing of an appeal by petitioner. Therefore, in all, 120 days' period is with petitioner in case if they want to approach directly appellate tribunal. In light of aforesaid provision, learned Senior Advocate Mr. KS Nanavati appearing for petitioner is having apprehension that appellate tribunal may not entertain appeal which may be preferred by petitioner only on ground of delay. It is submitted by him that some suitable directions may be issued to appellate tribunal so appellate Tribunal may consider period which has been consumed in filing various proceedings before this Court and also to decide such appeal that may be preferred by petitioner on merits. 9. Learned Advocate Mr. Niral R. Mehta appearing for respondent PF Authority has submitted that for that, let petitioner may file such appeal along with an application for condonation of delay with all details before appellate tribunal and appellate Tribunal may be directed to consider it in accordance with law. 10. I have considered submissions made by learned advocates appearing on behalf of respective parties. I have also considered that an amount of about Rs. 53 lakhs has already been deposited by petitioner before PF Authority. 10. I have considered submissions made by learned advocates appearing on behalf of respective parties. I have also considered that an amount of about Rs. 53 lakhs has already been deposited by petitioner before PF Authority. Order passed under section 7A by respondent - PF Authority is dated 18th September, 2008 and order under section 7B has been passed on 16th December, 2010. In-between, as referred to above, various petitions including Miscellaneous Civil Application filed by petitioner and, therefore, according to my opinion, there is delay but there are sincere efforts made by petitioner to ventilate their grievance before this court and in view of this back ground, delay cannot be considered to be deliberate attempt on part of petitioner just to avoid and ignoring proceedings. Therefore, let petitioner may prefer appeal before appellate authority under section 7-I along with an application for condonation of delay and waiver application, within period of four weeks from date of receiving copy of present order. After receiving such appeal as well as application for condonation of delay and waiver application from petitioner, it is directed to appellate Tribunal to consider it in light of various proceedings initiated by petitioner before this Court for challenging orders in question and sincere active efforts made by petitioner cannot be considered to be deliberate delay on part of petitioner and, therefore, let appellate tribunal may examine matter on merits and decide it after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to both parties within period of four months from date of receiving such appeal with application for condonation of delay and waiver application from petitioner. This Court is having hope that appellate tribunal may not adopt technical stand but at least to decide real controversy between both parties on merits. The Waiver Application is to be decided independently in accordance with law while keeping in mind dues against petitioner. 11. In view of above observations and directions, present petitions are disposed of by this Court without expressing any opinion on merits and let Department may wait till period specified by this Court for filing appeal by petitioner and may not take any further action for aforesaid limited period. DS Permitted. Petition disposed of.