JUDGMENT J.J. Munir, J. This writ petition has been filed challenging an order dated 19.01.2024 passed by the Presiding Officer, Employees' Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, Kanpur Nagar in Appeal No. 49 of 2023 granting stay of damages against the orders passed under Section 14B and 7Q of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short, 'the Act of 1952'), awarding damages and interest. By the said order, the Tribunal has admitted the appeal to hearing and granted interim stay of operation of the order dated 19.04.2024 passed under Section 14B and 7Q by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II, Varanasi on condition that the petitioner do deposit a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- under Section 14B and a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- under Section 7Q of the Act of 1952. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II, Varanasi has ordered the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 10,01,517/- under Section 14B of the Act of 1952 and Rs. 5,54,805/- under Section 7Q of the said Act. 2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has been at pains to urge before us that there is no requirement of pre-deposit in an appeal preferred under Section 7-I of the Act of 1952. The requirement of pre-deposit is there in a case, where the appeal under Section 7A is filed. He has drawn the attention of the Court to the holding of my esteemed Brother S.D. Singh in Writ-C No. 33257 of 2021, decided on 19.01.2022, wherein it has been held: "7. What naturally flows from the above is that at present the Tribunal has erred in requiring the petitioner to pre-deposit the amount of damages and interest. It is clear that no part of the damages may have been required to be pre-deposited to maintain the appeal filed by the petitioner. The maintainability of the appeal against interest demand is left open to be considered by the Tribunal, on its own reasoning." 3. Upon hearing learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jagdish Pathak, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 2, this Court is afraid that the petitioner's contention cannot be accepted. 4. A perusal of the impugned order passed by the Appellate Tribunal does not show that the Tribunal have required the petitioner to pre-deposit any sum of money. Upon hearing learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jagdish Pathak, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 2, this Court is afraid that the petitioner's contention cannot be accepted. 4. A perusal of the impugned order passed by the Appellate Tribunal does not show that the Tribunal have required the petitioner to pre-deposit any sum of money. The Tribunal have passed an interim order after admitting the appeal, subject to the condition that the petitioner deposits a certain sum of money as directed. It is only a conditional stay order. In our opinion, the said order is absolutely interlocutory and there is no such perversity in the condition imposed as may require this Court to interfere with it in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. 5. Accordingly, this petition fails and is dismissed, summarily.