JUDGMENT : Pramath Patnaik, J. Since reliefs sought for in both the applications are similar in nature and in both the applications modification has been sought for in impugned order dated 04.08.2017 passed in W.P. (C) No. 641 of 2016 and W.P. (L) No. 506 of 2016, with the consent of learned counsels appearing for the respective parties, both the applications are heard together and by this common order, are being disposed of. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners submitted that W.P.(C) No. 641 of 2016 and W.P.(L) No.506 of 2016 was filed by petitioner-Telco Transport Companies Association, Jamshedpur and Petitioner-Tata Motors Limited, previously known as Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company Limited challenging order dated 09.10.2015 passed by respondent-Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Jamshedpur, which were heard together and were disposed of vide common order dated 04.08.2017, operative portion of which is reproduced herein below : "In such view of the matter, the writ petitions are disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to approach appropriate forum to avail the alternative remedy of appeal provided under the statute. In the event, the petitioners approach the Tribunal, the appellate authority shall decide the case on its own merit, and do well with the appeal preferred by the petitioners and decide the matter as expeditiously as possible since the parties have been in litigating terms for more than three decades." 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the provisions of Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, the appellate authority was the "Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal" at Delhi. But, in the meantime, the Ministry of Labour and Employment, Govt. of India vide notification dated 20th July, 2017 amended the Employees' Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules,1997. It has further been submitted that as the amendment was very recent and there was some ambiguity regarding the appellate authority, it took some time in preferring the appeal and lastly the petitioner preferred appeal on 13.09.2017. However, the Provident Fund Authorities issued a letter dated 04.09.2017 intimating the petitioners about resumption of inquiry and fixed the next date of hearing on 15.09.2017, on which date, the matter was adjourned to 25.09.2017. 5. However, the Provident Fund Authorities issued a letter dated 04.09.2017 intimating the petitioners about resumption of inquiry and fixed the next date of hearing on 15.09.2017, on which date, the matter was adjourned to 25.09.2017. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted on 25.09.2017, the petitioners appeared before the Provident Fund authorities with a prayer for keeping the proceeding in abeyance till disposal of the appeal pending before Tribunal at Dhanbad, but the same was rejected stating therein that since no valid stay order of any Court of law is in operation as on date, hence, the request made therein cannot be acceded to. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in the writ application, the Hon'ble Court has passed the order of stay on 20.10.2016, which was operative till disposal of the case. However, the facts and circumstances narrated above, necessitates extension of interim order of stay till the date, the Tribunal disposes of at least the Stay application. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioner tried their best to pursue the appeal but due to non-clarity on the issue as to out of two Tribunals, constituted at Dhanbad, which Tribunal will have jurisdiction to hear the appeals arising out of Employees Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1956. It has further been submitted that however, as per direction of Registrar, the petitioners had filed appeals before Learned Central Government Industrial Tribunal-I at Dhanbad. 7. Ms. Banani Verma, learned counsel appearing for respondent-RPFC vehemently opposed the prayer made by the petitioner and submitted that till to-day no final order has been passed by the authority and only some documents has been demanded by the authority, hence, no interference is called for by this Court. Learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that further delay will thwart the possible outcome in the matter. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that further delay will thwart the possible outcome in the matter. 8. Regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court feels it expedient to modify order dated 04.08.2017 passed in W.P. (C) No.641 of 2016 and W.P. (L) No.506 of 2016, for the following facts and reasons : (i) This case has a chequered history and parties are in litigating terms for more than three decades and in the last round of litigation before this Court, this Court considering all the materials available on record, disposed of the writ applications, being W.P. (C) No. 641 of 2016 and W.P. (L) No. 506 of 2016, vide order dated 4.08.2017 with the observations and directions, as quoted above. But, certainly this Court had not given any interim protection by way of granting stay for the interregnum period i.e. till disposal of the stay petition or otherwise. Hence, the action of the respondent-RPFC in going ahead with the proceeding or rejecting the prayer of the petitioners vide order dated 25.09.2017 for stay of the proceeding cannot be found fault with. Even otherwise also, this Court does not and ought not to sit as an appellate authority over the order passed by the respondents-RPFC. (ii) But, this Court cannot lose sight of the fact and oblivious that during pendency of the writ applications, when the same was pending for amendment, notification dated 20.07.2017 came whereby amendment was done in the Employees' Provident fund Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1997 by the Ministry of labour and employment, Govt. of India. (iii) From perusal of record, it further appears that during pendency of the writ application, the further proceeding before the respondent-RPFC was stayed. The basis object and purport of granting interim protection is mainly to cut short the multiplicity of litigation and here in the case at hand, the parties are in litigating terms for the last three decades. The interim order of stay is generally passed as a temporary arrangement to preserve the status quo till the matter is taken up or order on stay petition is passed only to ensure that the matter does not become either infructuous or a fait accompli before the final hearing. The interim order of stay is generally passed as a temporary arrangement to preserve the status quo till the matter is taken up or order on stay petition is passed only to ensure that the matter does not become either infructuous or a fait accompli before the final hearing. Grant of interim relief in regard to the nature and extent thereof depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case as no straight jacket formula can be laid down in this regard. (Own emphasis) (iv) Hence, in the fitness of things and to cut short the likelihood of multiplicity of litigation, it would be expedient in the interest of justice to grant stay in the proceeding pending before Provident Fund Commissioner till disposal of stay petition within a shortest possible time. Even otherwise also, very purpose of filing appeal would be frustrated and filing of appeal would become infructuous and nugatory, if any order is passed by the Regional provident Fund Commissioner beyond order dated 09.10.2015, which is the matter of challenge before the appellate Tribunal. 9. At this stage, learned counsel for the respondents as also counsel appearing for the intervenors submitted that shortest time limit may be granted to the Tribunal to dispose of the stay petition as well as the main appeal, taking into account the fact that the parties are in litigating terms since long and the petitioners are adhering to only delaying tactics. 10. In the net result, the impugned order dated 04.08.2017 is modified with a further direction to the appellate authority to decide the stay application first, which is stated to be already filed by the petitioners before appellate authority, as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of eight weeks from today. Till then the proceedings pending before respondent-Regional Provident Fund Commissioner shall be kept in abeyance. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellate authority shall do well to dispose of the appeal expeditiously preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order, if no other exigency/impediment comes on the way of the appellate Tribunal. It is made clear that other directions and observations passed in order dated 04.08.2017 shall remain in tact. 11. With the aforesaid modifications in impugned order dated 04.08.2017, both the C.M.Ps stands disposed of. It is made clear that other directions and observations passed in order dated 04.08.2017 shall remain in tact. 11. With the aforesaid modifications in impugned order dated 04.08.2017, both the C.M.Ps stands disposed of. However, before parting with this order, I direct the parties concerned to co-operate with the proceeding before Tribunal.