Heard learned Advocate Shri. Wachasunder at length. Perused the record annexed to appeal and on the record of writ petition.

2. The respondent had done the assessment of amount of contribution dues recoverable from the employer by order dated 23-10-2008. An amount of Rs.8,43,023/- was found due for a period October, 2004 to March, 2007.

3. The appellant challenged the order of Assessment passed by the respondent no. 1 before Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal.

In that appeal, the appellant filed the application for waiver of deposit. The application for waiver was allowed by the authority by order dated 17-11-2008.

4. The order of grant of waiver of deposit was challenged by the respondent before the Single Judge of this Court.

5. It is seen that the appellant bad appeared in the writ petition and filed affidavit-in-reply/submission and participated in the hearing through Advocate.

The Single Judge of this Court had thus heard the writ petition.

6. The learned Single Judge accepted the contention of the writ petitioner that though name of Shri. R. R. Rajesh Advocate has been mentioned as an Advocate appearing for the respondent, and the application was allowed on 25-2-2009, when the said learned Standing Counsel had not yet received the instructions. Learned Single Judge, therefore, allowed the writ petition directing deposit of 75% of the amount.

7. The order impugned does not disclose, but it seems that learned Single Judge found a just solution instead of delaying the proceedings further by remand etc., and hence directed prior deposit to the tune of 75% of the amount of dues which were demanded.

8. It appears that present appellant felt dissatisfied by the order passed by learned Single Judge and therefore filed a review application before learned Single Judge. The review application has been dismissed by learned Single Judge after hearing.

9. In this Letters Patent Appeal, orders passed by the learned Single Judge in review as well as in writ petition are challenged.

10. The points which are pressed in service in this appeal are summarized as below:-

(a) Learned Single Judge ought to have issued Rule and thereafter only could have allowed the writ petition. Failure to hear and dispose of the writ petition without formally issuing Rule, gravely offends the process of justice being violative of Bombay High Court Appellate Side Rules.

(b) The assessment of demand is done by the respondent without identification of the workers, and therefore, the assessment was not justified, and hence grant of prayer for waiver of deposit was just and reasonable and does not warrant any inference.

REASONS AND CONCLUSIONS.

(a) As to need to issue Rule before final disposal of writ petition.

11. Appellant does not dispute that the appellant firm was present before learned Single Judge, represented through Advocate. Appellant admits that it had participated in the hearing. A grievance is not made that fair and reasonable opportunity of hearing was refused. Record shows that this Court had issued notice before admission on 17-09-2009. The present appellant had filed written submission/affidavit in reply which is on record at page 58 onwards, and thereby the writ petition was opposed.

12. Appellant's thrust and emphasis is upon the failure of learned Single Judge to issue 'Rule'.

This Court cannot connive at the principle under issue of Rule. Issue of Rule means notice. The appellant had due and sufficient notice of writ petition. The hyper technical submission that 'Rule' was not issued has no merit and it does not deserve any cognizance. Effort of appellant is to adhere to and fall back on letter of law and not the spirit and principle underlying it.

(b) As to Merits of assessment and Justifiability of order for waiver of prior deposit.

13. On the request of the learned Advocate for the appellant, this Court has carefully perused the order of the Assessing Officer, and also of learned Single Judge.

14. The labour component (total wage bill) to