JUDGMENT Rohit B. Deo, J. (Oral) - Heard Mr. V.S. Kukday, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Usha Tanna holding for Mr. R.S. Sundaram, the learned counsel for the respondent. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith with consent. 3. Exception is taken to the order dated 21.10.2015 by and under which the application seeking waiver of predeposit of the provident fund contribution preferred under section 7O of the Employees'' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 ("Act" for short) is partly allowed and the petitioner establishment is directed to deposit 35 percent of the assessed contribution which comes to Rs. 5,06,59,223/. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. V.S. Kukday would submit that the order impugned is vitiated due to failure to exercise jurisdiction. The submission is, that the proviso to section 7O of the Act is a manifestation of the legislative intent that the Tribunal empowered to direct even 100 percent waiver of the predeposit. The enabling power, and Mr. V.S. Kukday, the learned counsel does not dispute that the power is discretionary, confers a vide discretion and the legislative object to confer discretion is to ensure that the right of appeal is not rendered illusory. Mr. V.S. Kukday, the learned counsel would submit that the order impugned is cryptic and there is no finding recorded, even prima facie, on the elaborate submission of the establishment that for reasons stated in the application under section 7O of the Act, a strong prima facie case is made out. Mr. Kukday, the learned counsel would further submit that the financial position of the petitioner establishment is precarious and the loan account is declared non performing asset. 5. Mrs. Usha Tanna, the learned counsel strenuously rebuts the submission of the petitioner establishment. She points out that in the entire application under section 7O of the Act, there is only a vague averment bereft of particulars that the petitioner establishment is facing financial hardship. Mrs. Usha Tanna, the learned counsel would further submit, taking me through the assessment order under Section 7A of the Act, that there is no prima facie case made out by the establishment. 6. Mrs. Usha Tanna, the learned counsel would further submit, taking me through the assessment order under Section 7A of the Act, that there is no prima facie case made out by the establishment. 6. Section 7O of the Act reads thus: "7O - 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 percent of the amount due from his as determined as 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." Similar provisions are incorporated in various enactments albeit with some difference in the language employed. Illustratively, the unamended section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (Act 1 of 1944) incorporated provisions which enabled waiver of the requirement of predeposit upon the assesses making out a case of undue hardship. The law is too well settled to warrant an elaborate discussion or reference to the plethora of the authorities which have interpreted the scope and ambit of such provisions. It is well settled that if a good prima facie case is made out, which would mean an arguable case and not necessarily a case which is bound to succeed, requiring predeposit of the tax or levy would ipso facto constitute undue hardship. 7. Section 7O of the Act does not employ the expression "undue hardship". However, the discretion conferred can not be arbitrary or whimsical or unguided. Implicit in the enabling power to waive the requirement of predeposit is the obligation to direct such waiver, and even a 100 percent waiver, if a case is made out. The discretion can not be fettered by a straight jacket formula. However, two important considerations which must weigh with the Tribunal in deciding an application under section 7O of the Act are: (i) Whether a strong prima facie case is made out and (ii) Whether the requirement of predeposit would constitute such financial hardship as would render the right of appeal illusory. Perusal of the order impugned would reveal that in the cryptic order, there is no consideration of the two most important aspects i.e. strong prima facie case and extreme financial hardship. Perusal of the order impugned would reveal that in the cryptic order, there is no consideration of the two most important aspects i.e. strong prima facie case and extreme financial hardship. The Tribunal is not expected to conduct a mini final hearing and to evaluate the material on record minutely or to make any decisive or conclusive observations. However, it is expected of the Tribunal to at least briefly record reasons which would satisfy the Court which is called upon to subject the order to judicial review, that the Tribunal has applied mind to the two important aspects i.e. strong prima facie case and extreme financial hardship. 8. The order impugned would reveal that there is no consideration of the aforesaid aspects. The order impugned is therefore, unsustainable and is liable to be set aside. 9. The petitioner has offered to deposit Rs. 25 lacs with the Provident Fund authority within four weeks. 10. This offer is treated as an undertaking to the Court. 11. The Tribunal shall rehear the parties and shall decide the application under section 7O of the Act afresh and in accordance with law within six weeks. If the Tribunal comes to the conclusion that the petitioner establishment is entitled to 100 percent waiver of the predeposit, the Tribunal shall finally dispose of the appeal within 60 days from the date of disposal of the 7O application. 12. Rule is made absolute in the afore stated terms.