Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, M/s. Ajmeri Gold Fingers, through its proprietor Surendra Choithram Keswani, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench. The petition challenged the order dated 18/10/2010 passed by the Employees' Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, Delhi, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal (ATA No. 394(9)2007) and confirmed the order dated 28/3/2007 passed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Akola, under Section 7A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. The Assistant Commissioner's order had held the petitioner to be in default of remittances under the Act. The petitioner appealed to the Appellate Tribunal, which was scheduled for hearing at Pune. The petitioner's counsel sought an adjournment by application dated 27/9/2010 on the ground of pre-occupation, but the application was refused. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution. The petitioner then approached the High Court. The High Court, after hearing the counsel for both sides, found no merit in the petition. The court noted that the petitioner had not demonstrated any error in the impugned order. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, and rule was discharged with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Employees' Provident Fund - Appeal - Dismissal for Non-Prosecution - Section 7A, Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 - The petitioner challenged the order of the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner under Section 7A determining applicability and default. The Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution as the petitioner's counsel sought adjournment but the application was refused. The High Court held that the petitioner failed to show any error in the impugned order and dismissed the writ petition. (Paras 2-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the impugned order dated 18/10/2010 passed by the Employees' Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution is sustainable in law.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Dismissal of appeal for non-prosecution
- Section 7A Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act
- 1952
- Scope of writ jurisdiction against EPF Appellate Tribunal order
Case Details
2011 LawText (BOM) (07) 112
Writ Petition No.998 of 2011
Shri S.E. Raghorte, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri A. Parihar, Advocate for the respondent no.2.
M/s. Ajmeri Gold Fingers, through its Proprietor – Surendra Choithram Keswani
1) The Presiding Officer, Employees' Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, Delhi. 2) The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, SRO, Raghuraj Arcade, Civil Lines, Akola, District Akola.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of the Employees' Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal dismissing the appeal and confirming the order under Section 7A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought to quash and set aside the order dated 18/10/2010 passed by the Employees' Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal and the order dated 28/3/2007 passed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner.
Filing Reason
The petitioner was held to be in default of remittances under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner. The appeal against that order was dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal for non-prosecution.
Previous Decisions
The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner passed an order under Section 7A on 28/3/2007 determining applicability and default. The Appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal (ATA No. 394(9)2007) on 18/10/2010.
Issues
Whether the impugned order dated 18/10/2010 passed by the Employees' Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution is sustainable in law.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner argued that the application for adjournment dated 27/9/2010 was refused by the Appellate Tribunal, leading to dismissal of the appeal for non-prosecution.
The respondent no.2 supported the impugned order.
Ratio Decidendi
The petitioner failed to show any error in the impugned order of the Appellate Tribunal dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution. The writ petition was dismissed as devoid of merit.
Judgment Excerpts
The above petition takes exception to the order dated 18/10/2010 passed by the Employees' Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal whereby the Appeal filed by the petitioner herein came to be dismissed and resultantly, the order passed under Section 7A of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 came to be confirmed.
Shorn of unnecessary details, it is required to be stated that the petitioner was held to be in default of the remittances to be made under the said Act.
The learned Counsel for the petitioner by his application dated 27/9/2010 sought for an adjournment of hearing of the said Appeal to 10/10/2010 on the ground of pre-occupation of the Counsel.
After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit in the above petition. Hence, the above petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.
Procedural History
The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner passed an order under Section 7A on 28/3/2007. The petitioner appealed to the Employees' Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal (ATA No. 394(9)2007). The Tribunal dismissed the appeal on 18/10/2010. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition under Article 226 before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench.
Acts & Sections
- Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952: Section 7A
