JUDGMENT S. Panda, J. The petitioner has challenged in this writ petition the action of the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organization, Bhubaneswar, opposite party no.3, initiating a proceeding under Section 7A of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (in short, the 1952 Act”) to determine the amount due from the petitioner under the provisions of 1952 Act, Employees Pension Scheme, 1995 and Employees Deposit Linked Insurance Scheme, 1976. 2. The State Government after consultation with the GRIDCO formulated Transfer Scheme Rules, i.e., Orissa Electricity Reform (Transfer of Assets, Liabilities, Proceeding and Personnel) of GRIDCO to Distribution Companies Rules, 1998 for the purpose of preparation and implementation of Scheme of Transfer of the Distribution Undertakings of GRIDCO to Distribution Companies which came into force w.e.f. 25.11.1998. Similarly, distribution companies (Distcos) has been defined in Rule 2(h) of the Rules which means the four Distcos CESCO, NESCO, WESCO and SOUTHCO have been incorporated with the principal objective of engaging in the business of distribution and retail supply of electricity in their relevant areas of operation. The present petitioner who is NESCO adopted Orissa State Electricity Board Employees Pension (including old age and family pension) Regulation 1992 for providing pensionary benefits, death-cum-retirement gratuity to all its employees. The said Regulation is in consonance with the Orissa Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1992. The petitioner has constituted a Trust known as NESCO Employees’ Pension Fund Trust and NESCO Employees’ Provident Fund Trust for management of the pension fund and the provident funds etc. The said Trust has been registered before the Sub-Registrar, Balasore under the provisions of the Indian Trust Act. After formulating its own Scheme for pension and provident funds, the conditions mentioned under Rule 7 of the 1998 Rules expired. Section 16(1)(c) of the 1952 Act provides that the Act shall not apply to any other establishment set up under Central, Provincial or State Act which employees are entitled to the benefits of the contributed provident fund or old age pension in accordance with any Scheme or Rule framed under the Act governing such benefits. Accordingly, the petitioner-management filed an application before the Government of Orissa under Section 16 read with Section 17 of the Act to exclude/exempt the company and its employees from the purview of the 1952 Act and the Scheme framed thereunder with effect from 26.11.1998. Accordingly, the petitioner-management filed an application before the Government of Orissa under Section 16 read with Section 17 of the Act to exclude/exempt the company and its employees from the purview of the 1952 Act and the Scheme framed thereunder with effect from 26.11.1998. The Government of Orissa, in the Department of Labour and Employment, informed the petitioner that the petitioner’s establishment cannot be excluded from the purview of Section 16 of 1952 Act since no CPF/Old Age Pension Scheme has been framed under the Orissa Electricity Reforms Act, 1995 or Rules framed thereunder for all categories of the employees as defined under Section 2(f) of the 1952 Act. The employees who are entitled to provident funds and pension benefits in accordance with the State Government’s GPF and Pension Scheme shall be excluded from the purview of 1952 Act and the remaining employees shall continue to be covered/governed under 1952 Act. The State Government further suggested seeking exemption from operation of all or any of the provisions of any Scheme framed under 1952 Act as provided under Section 17 of the Act in respect of the employees who are entitled to the benefits not less favourable than those specified under the corresponding provisions of the Scheme framed under 1952 Act. The said application is to be filed before the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner in the prescribed manner who in turn may forward the same to the appropriate Government for grant of exemption. The said intimation was given to the petitioner on 8th April, 2005. In pursuance of the said intimation, the petitioner-company made an application to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner on 12.9.2006. The Regional Provident Commissioner on 10th January, 2007 had given reply after receiving the application pointed out certain defects/short comings and advised for rectification of the said short comings. Accordingly, the petitioner-company had complied with those details and given clarification/queries of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner on 12th March, 2007. 3. While the matter stood thus, opposite party no.3 initiated a proceeding under Section 7A of the Act. After receiving summons, the petitioner-company filed all the relevant documents showing that the proceeding be kept in abeyance till adjudication of the application of the petitioner filed under Section 17 of the Act as the same is pending before the authority. 3. While the matter stood thus, opposite party no.3 initiated a proceeding under Section 7A of the Act. After receiving summons, the petitioner-company filed all the relevant documents showing that the proceeding be kept in abeyance till adjudication of the application of the petitioner filed under Section 17 of the Act as the same is pending before the authority. Opposite party no.3, however, on 22nd March, 2007 passed the order stating that in case the petitioner failed to produce the record as called for, he will issue show cause to arrest against the Chief Executive Officer of the petitioner-company and he posted the matter to 3rd May, 2007. Hence the present writ petition. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that since the application of the petitioner filed under Section 17 of the Act is pending before the competent authority. The competent authority on 2nd July, 2007 intimated the petitioner that they will depute a team of officers headed by APFC(CC-II) to visit the establishment during July/August, 2007 for verification of the record relating to grant of exemption to the establishment. Accordingly, the said team of officers verified the documents of the petitioner’s establishment. However, the matter still is pending with the competent authority. Therefore, necessary direction may be issued to opposite party no.3 to stay the further proceeding of Section 7A of the Act. 5. A counter affidavit has been filed by opposite parties 2,3 and 4 taking a stand that only a proceeding was initiated under Section 7A of the Act. Opposite party no.3 issued a notice to produce the documents for necessary enquiry. It is the statutory obligation on the part of the petitioner’s establishment to comply with the provisions of the EPF and MP Act, 1952 and they should participate with the enquiry. Therefore, the proceeding need not be stayed. As the exemption is to be granted by the appropriate Government and the Government has not take any decision, the petitioner’s establishment should participate in the proceeding under Section 7A of the Act and produce the relevant documents. 6. This Court has considered the rival submissions of the parties and perused the record. Admittedly, the application filed by the petitioner-company for exemption under Section 17 of the Act is still pending for consideration with the competent authority. 6. This Court has considered the rival submissions of the parties and perused the record. Admittedly, the application filed by the petitioner-company for exemption under Section 17 of the Act is still pending for consideration with the competent authority. Therefore, proceeding under Section 7A of the Act need not be proceeded with as the petitioner-company has already implemented its own Scheme for the same benefit. 7. Therefore, this Court directs opposite party no.3 to keep in abeyance the proceeding under Section 7A of the Act initiated against the petitioner-company till disposal of the application filed by it under Section 17 of the Act. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No costs.