JUDGMENT Rohit Ranjan Agarwal, J. Heard Sri Ravi Kant, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Arpit Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner. No one has put in appearance on behalf of respondent though names of three advocates have been shown in the cause list. 2. This writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 26.04.1999 passed by Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Sub-Regional Office, Bareilly in proceedings under section 7A of The Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter called as 'Act of 1952'). 3. It is contended by learned Senior Counsel that the earlier round of proceedings which was in respect of the same period was decided by order of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner on 24.01.1995 and it was found that established had engaged persons as trainees and not employees. The establishment was found not liable to pay provident dues. Subsequently, it appears that on a complaint proceedings were again launched for the same period. By order impugned dated 26.04.1999, the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Incharge Sub-Region, Bareilly had ordered for the payment of Rs.20,88,095/- as dues for the period November, 1992 to February, 1998. 4. After hearing counsel for the petitioner and going through the record, I find that once the matter had already attained finality on 24.01.1995 and proceedings were dropped after reasoned order was passed, the fresh proceedings launched by the respondent in view of Section 7A of the Act of 1952 is not maintainable. 5. The order passed by opposite party is hereby set aside. 6. The writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. 7. Any amount deposited during the pendency of writ petition shall be refunded to the petitioner within a period of one month from today.