JUDGMENT : K.M. Thaker, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent - Provident Fund Department. 2. In present petition, the petitioner has prayed, inter alia, that:- "8(a) To hold and declare that the impugned orders at Annexure-A and F of the respondent and Annexure - H of the EPF Tribunal and the demand notice at Annexure - I as being illegal, arbitrary, unjust, perverse and contrary to the settled principles of law." 3. In light of the facts which has emerged from the record and from the submissions by learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent department, it appears that the respondent department initiated proceedings under Section 7A of the Act demanding contribution from the petitioner establishment in respect of the canteen subsidy (mess allowance) in the year 2008-2009. According to the respondent department, the petitioner establishment was, in law, liable to deduct and deposit/pay contribution towards provident fund and other funds under the Act with regard to the expenditure incurred/amount paid towards food/canteen subsidy and/or mess subsidy. It also appears that in response to the notice issued by the department, the petitioner establishment appeared before the APFC and filed its objections, however, the authority passed order against the petitioner establishment. By his order, the APFC directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 5,33,203/- towards alleged dues in respect of provident fund in respect of the amount paid towards mess allowance. 3.1 Thereafter, the petitioner had taken out review application which came to be rejected by the department vide order dated 5.11.2009. 3.2 Aggrieved by the said orders under Section 7A and 7B, the petitioner establishment filed appeal before the learned Tribunal. The appeal was registered as ATA No. 35 (5) 2010. The learned Tribunal heard the parties and rejected the petitioner's grievance against the orders passed by APFC holding, inter alia, that the petitioner is liable to pay provident fund and other contributions in respect of the amount paid towards expenditure incurred towards and for mess allowance, canteen/food subsidy. The learned Tribunal passed the order dated 6.9.2011 and confirmed the order of APFC while rejecting the appeal. 3.3 After the learned Tribunal dismissed the appeal vide order dated 6.9.2011, the department issued demand notice dated 4.10.2012. The said notice is also challenged by the petitioner in present petition. 4. The learned Tribunal passed the order dated 6.9.2011 and confirmed the order of APFC while rejecting the appeal. 3.3 After the learned Tribunal dismissed the appeal vide order dated 6.9.2011, the department issued demand notice dated 4.10.2012. The said notice is also challenged by the petitioner in present petition. 4. The dispute and controversy regarding claim of the provident fund department for payment of contribution in respect of food/canteen subsidy or mess allowance is concluded by the decision of this Court in case of Deepak Nitrite Ltd. v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner & Anr. [ 2013(1) GLR 352 ] wherein the Court has rejected the stand and claim of the provident fund department that the amount paid/expenditure incurred towards canteen subsidy or mess allowance or food subsidy forms part of basic wages and it is subject to contribution for provident fund and other contribution under the Scheme. 4.1 It is accepted by learned counsel for the Provident Fund Department that the said decision was carried in appeal, however, the appeal was rejected and thereafter, the department has not pursued further remedy against the said decision and accordingly, the said decision has attained finality. 5. In view of the decision in case of Deepak nitrite Ltd. (supra), impugned orders passed by the APFC and the order passed by the learned Tribunal cannot be sustained. 6. Under the circumstances, following order is passed:- 6.1 The impugned order dated 30.6.2009 passed by the APFC under Section 7A and the order dated 6.9.2011 passed by the learned Tribunal are set aside in light of the decision in case of Deepak nitrite Ltd. (supra). Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.