Judgment : 1. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. The writ petition, giving rise to this Special Appeal, is still pending. 3. On 20.02.2014, learned Single Judge passed an order in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9841/2011 as well as S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8061/2011, by which he directed the petitioner to be present before the Commissioner on 02.04.2014, in reference to the notice under Section 7A(b) of the Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, and to produce the record, as desired, with further direction that the exercise for assessment would not affect the issue raised by the petitioner herein. 4. On 17.10.2014, D.B. Special Appeal(Writ) No.741/2014, arising out of S.B. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.9841/2011, was decided with the following directions:- “We are of the view that it was not incumbent upon the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner to pass a composite order under Section 7A(1)(a) & (b) of the Act. It was within his discretion to pass an order, for which no direction or even guidance could be given to him, and that too, after he was summoned to the Court. There was no need, nor there was any prayer made, or any request by the Provident Fund Department to pass a composite order of assessment. The impugned order dated 20.2.2014 appears to have been passed only on the volition of learned Single Judge. The powers in such matters should be exercised, strictly in accordance with the procedure prescribed in law. The anxiety of the Court to call the matters or to expedite the process initiated by calling and summoning them, must be resisted. In view of the above, we stay the operation of the order dated 20.2.2014. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner would not be required to carry out the composite assessment. Learned Single Judge will do well to decide the issue of the applicability of the Act, on the activities carried out by the petitioner in its factory, before proceeding further in the matter.” 5. The facts and circumstances, and the grounds in this Special Appeal, are identical and, thus, the same order is required to be passed in this matter. 6. For the reasons given in our order dated 17.10.2014, the operation of the order dated 20.02.2014, is stayed. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner would not be required to carry out the composite assessment. The facts and circumstances, and the grounds in this Special Appeal, are identical and, thus, the same order is required to be passed in this matter. 6. For the reasons given in our order dated 17.10.2014, the operation of the order dated 20.02.2014, is stayed. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner would not be required to carry out the composite assessment. Learned Single Judge will do well to decide the issue of the applicability of the Act, on the activities carried out by the petitioner in its factory, before proceeding further in the matter. 7. The Special Appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.