ORDER I.A. No.8848 of 2013: In this interlocutory application, Respondent No.4-applicant-Manju Roy Choudhary, concerned employee, has prayed for vacating the interim order dated 18th January, 2010 passed in I.A. No.3500 of 2009. 2. It has been stated that by the said order, further proceedings of the impugned order passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner has been stayed. It has been stated that the Regional provident Fund Commissioner after hearing the parties has held that there is master-servant relationship between the writ petitioner and the Respondent No.4-applicant and the Respondent No.4 is entitled to get the benefit of the E.P.F. Act, 1952. The writ petitioner-employer has been directed to extend member of the Provident Fund to the Respondent No.4 from the date of her joining. The said order has been challenged in the instant writ petition. 3. By order dated 18th January, 2010, implementation/execution of the said order has been stayed. The Respondent No.4-applicant is an old ailing widow, aged about 74 years. She has no source of subsistence and for meeting medical expenses of her treatment. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent No.4-applicant submitted that if the interim order dated 18th January, 2010 is not vacated, the Respondent No.4-applicant shall not be able to get benefit of the provisions of E.P.F. Act and shall be put to suffer irreparable loss and injury. 5. The application has been opposed by the writ petitioner-Company. It has been stated, inter alia, that the Respondent No.4applicant was never an employee of the Company. She was a social worker. She had contributed her services to the community development centre run by the petitioner-Company. She had no fixed duty hours and Company had no direct control as employer. However, as per the policy of the Company she used to get honorarium for the social work. She was not in the roll of the Company and the provisions of the E.P.F. Act are not attracted in her case. 6. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner without properly appreciating the factual and legal aspect has erroneously held that the Respondent No.4-applicant is entitled for getting E.P.F. Membership from the date of her joining. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner submitted that the impugned order of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner is wholly illegal and unsustainable. 6. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner without properly appreciating the factual and legal aspect has erroneously held that the Respondent No.4-applicant is entitled for getting E.P.F. Membership from the date of her joining. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner submitted that the impugned order of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner is wholly illegal and unsustainable. The impugned order has been stayed by the Court after considering and appreciating the facts and material on record. No ground has been made out for vacating the said interim order dated 18th January, 2010. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their submissions. I also perused the impugned order. By the said order, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Jamshedpur has held that the Respondent No.4-applicant was an employee of M/s. Tata Steel Limited since 1966 and is entitled for the membership of the provident fund from the date of joining the establishment. The said order of this Court has been assailed in the writ petition. The legality of the impugned order is yet to be finally tested by this Court. In the mean while by order dated 18th January, 2010 passed in W.P.(C) No.5753 of 2008, all further proceedings pursuant to the impugned order have been stayed. The Respondent No.4-applicant is, thus, not getting the benefit of the impugned order. It is not disputed by the writ petitioner that the Respondent No.4applicant is a widow, aged about 74 years. They have also not denied the contentions of the Respondent No.4 that she has been ailing and has no source of subsistence. On perusal of the record, I find that the interim order was passed without imposing any condition on the writ petitioner. 9. It is, however, not disputed by the parties that the said order dated 18th January, 2010 was passed after hearing the petitioner and Respondent Nos.1 to 3 and considering their submissions and there is no change in the fact situation. 10. But the fact remains that the Respondent No.4-applicant has been deprived of getting any benefit of the impugned order passed in her favour due to the interim order dated 18th January, 2010. The Respondent no.4 is ailing old widow, aged about 74 years, and she has no source of subsistence for survival. 10. But the fact remains that the Respondent No.4-applicant has been deprived of getting any benefit of the impugned order passed in her favour due to the interim order dated 18th January, 2010. The Respondent no.4 is ailing old widow, aged about 74 years, and she has no source of subsistence for survival. In view of the above, it would not be proper in the interest of justice to continue the interim order for a long time without imposing any condition on the petitioner. 11. In course of hearing Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner-Company, submitted that looking to the old age and ailing condition of the Respondent No.4-applicant, the Company would pay some lump sum amount to her without prejudice to their case and no other condition for stay is required to be imposed by this Court for continuing the interim order. 12. Considering the said facts and circumstances and the offer of the petitioner, this interlocutory application is disposed of, directing the petitioner-Company to deposit a lump sum amount of Rs.75,000/- by 21st January, 2014 in the bank account of Respondent No.4-applicant, as a condition for continuation of the interim order dated 18th January, 2010 passed in W.P.(C) No.5753 of 2008. 13. It is made clear that payment of the said amount to the Respondent No.4-applicant shall not prejudice the claim and contentions of the either party. 14. I.A. No.8848 of 2013 stands disposed of. I.A. No.409 of 2011 : In view of the order passed in I.A. No.8848 of 2013 dated 15th January, 2014, learned counsel for the Respondent No.4 does not press this interlocutory application. I.A. No.409 of 2011 is disposed of as not pressed. I.A. disposed of.