Judgment : As per the officer report, respondent no. 1 stood served, however, none is present for respondent no. 1. 2. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner has filed present petition assailing the order dated 21.1.2014 passed by the Employees’ Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, whereby condition to deposit 75% of the amount due, to maintain the appeal was waived and further operation of the impugned order was stayed. 3. Section 7-O of the Employees’ Provident Funds Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, reads as under : “7-O. Deposit of amount due, on filing appeal. – No appeal by the employer shall be entertained by a Tribunal unless he has deposited with it seventy-five per cent of the amount due from him as determined by an officer referred to in section 7A: Provided that the Tribunal may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, waive or reduce the amount to be deposited under this section.]” 4. Bare perusal of Section 7-O of the Act would reveal that to maintain the appeal, appellant has to deposit seventy-five per cent of the amount due from him as determined by an officer referred to in Section 7A. 5. Proviso to Section 7-O provides that condition of pre-deposit of seventy-five per cent amount due may be waived by the Appellate Tribunal for the reasons to be recorded in writing. 6. Bare perusal of the impugned order would reveal that condition to deposit seventy-five per cent amount due was waived in view of the statement made by the appellant that delay occurred due to division/vertical split between two fractions of M/s Lakhani Group, therefore, appellant though willing to make the payment, was not able to do so due to unavoidable circumstances of the inter se dispute between two fractions of M/s Lakhani Group. 7. In view of the statement of the appellant, it transpires that appellant was in fact willing to make payment to the employees, however, due to inter se dispute between the two rival groups of appellant company, payment could not be made within time. 8. As to whether this is the sufficient ground for the delayed payment is yet to be decided by the Appellate Tribunal. Therefore, reason for waiving of the mandatory deposit seems to be justified. 8. As to whether this is the sufficient ground for the delayed payment is yet to be decided by the Appellate Tribunal. Therefore, reason for waiving of the mandatory deposit seems to be justified. Not only this, while exercising the writ jurisdiction, this Court, ordinarily, should not disturb in the discretion exercised by the Appellate Tribunal while waiving of the pre-deposit condition. Therefore, I am not inclined to take contrary view to the view taken by the learned Appellate Tribunal. 9. Petition, thus, fails and is hereby dismissed. However, learned Appellate Tribunal is requested to decide the appeal preferably within a period of six months from the date copy of this order is communicated to learned Appellate Tribunal. 10. Registry is directed to forward copy of this order forthwith to learned Appellate Tribunal for information and compliance.