ORDER : 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal is filed against the order of the High Court dated 19.02.2014, whereby the Writ Petition filed by the respondent- Cooperative Society has been allowed. Before the High Court, the learned counsel for the appellants herein (respondents before the High court) did not appear and the matter was decided ex-parte. 3. Shri Abhishek Vikas, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that two decisions relied upon by the High Court being Ghaziabad Zila Sahkari Bank Ltd. Vs. Addl. Labour Commissioner & Ors. (2007) 11 SCC 756 and M/s Pradhan Prabhandak, Kisan Sahakari Chini Mills, Nanauta, Saharanpur Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. (2012) 4 All.LJ 591, do not relate to the Employees’ Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short ‘Act’), whereas the same relate to Labour Court/Industrial Disputes Act and as such the said decisions would not be applicable to the facts of the present case. 3. It is submitted that Section 16 of the Act provides for the cooperative societies employing not less than 50 persons and working with the aid of power would be covered under the provisions of the said Act and as such, since these conditions are fulfilled in the case of respondent, the Act would be applicable to the Respondent-Cooperative Society. 4. Per-contra, Shri Jatin Mahajan, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the judgment of the High Court is fully applicable to the facts of the present case, inasmuch as Section 16(1)(c) of the Act clearly provides that the provisions of the Act would not be applicable to establishments set up under the State Act and where the employees are entitled to the benefit of the Contributory Provident Fund. It is submitted that the respondent-cooperative society is established under the UP Cooperative Societies Act, 1965, which is a State Act and by virtue of the said Act, the Contributory Provident Fund is established. 5. Be that as it may, since these arguments, as submitted before us, have not been considered before the High Court, we are not inclined to enter into the same, as we would like to have the benefit of the decision of the High Court on these issues. 6. 5. Be that as it may, since these arguments, as submitted before us, have not been considered before the High Court, we are not inclined to enter into the same, as we would like to have the benefit of the decision of the High Court on these issues. 6. Accordingly, since the Order of the High Court does not deal with the aforesaid questions, and also mainly because learned counsel for the appellants herein was not present at the time of hearing before the High Court, we quash the order of the High Court and remand the matter for fresh decision before the High Court, but on payment of costs of Rs. 50,000/-, which may be deposited by the appellants herein before the Registry of the High Court within three weeks from today. On such deposit being made, prior to the commencement of the hearing before the High Court, the respondent herein shall be entitled to withdraw the said amount of costs. 7. The High Court is requested to decide the matter afresh, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties. 8. The appeal stands allowed as indicated above.