requirement, pre-deposit of 75% of the amount dues, determined in the impugned proceedings, is to be made. Here in this case, no such requirement arises in view of the fact that the respondent themselves have made the entire payment before the organisation, however, without prejudice to their rights in the appeal. Therefore, the only question to be seen in the appeal is as to whether the order passed under section 7A is sustainable or not. The respondent has to canvass all the points before the Appellate Tribunal against the order dated 13.05.2019, so as to enable the Appellate Tribunal to decide the matter on merits and in accordance with law. However, the Tribunal, in this case, has passed the impugned direction to refund the excess amount beyond 75% to the respondent herein, probably, by considering that the respondent is statutorily bound to deposit only 75% as pre-deposit for entertaining the appeal. In my considered view, the said approach of the Tribunal, that too, without an application from the respondent seeking relief to that effect, cannot be appreciated as just and proper. Admittedly, the respondent has discharged their liability under Section 7A. No doubt, such discharge was without prejudice to their right to challenge the order made under Section 7A. When such being the factual position, question of refunding 25% of the amount during the pendency of the appeal does not arise, as the said payment made by the respondent pursuant to the order made under Section 7A is not by way of pre-deposit pending disposal of the appeal but as a discharge of their liability, however without prejudice to their right to challenge the order under Section 7A. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the Tribunal is not justified in ordering refund of excess amount beyond 75%.
