Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, M/s. Yadgar Gold Fingers, a proprietorship concern, challenged an order dated 18/10/2010 passed by the Employees' Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, Delhi, which dismissed its appeal and confirmed the order under Section 7A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 passed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner on 28/3/2007. The Assistant Commissioner had held the petitioner to be in default of remittances under the Act. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Tribunal, registered as ATA No. 395(9)2007. The appeal was scheduled for hearing at the Tribunal's camp at Pune. The petitioner's counsel sought an adjournment by application dated 27/9/2010 on the ground of pre-occupation, requesting a hearing on 10/10/2010. However, the petitioner failed to appear on the adjourned date. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution and confirmed the Section 7A order. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The High Court, after hearing both sides, found no merit in the petition. The court noted that the petitioner had been given an opportunity to be heard but failed to avail it. The court held that the Tribunal's order was justified and no interference was warranted. The writ petition was dismissed 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 - Petitioner challenged order under Section 7A before Appellate Tribunal; Tribunal dismissed appeal for non-prosecution as petitioner's counsel sought adjournment but did not appear on adjourned date - Held that Tribunal's order was justified and no interference warranted (Paras 2-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Employees' Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal erred in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution and confirming the order under Section 7A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition with no order as to costs, upholding the order of the Employees' Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal dated 18/10/2010.
Law Points
- Natural justice
- adjournment
- pre-deposit
- Section 7A
- Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act
- 1952
Case Details
2011 LawText (BOM) (07) 113
Writ Petition No.999 of 2011
Shri S.E. Raghorte for petitioner; Shri A. Parihar for respondent no.2
M/s. Yadgar Gold Fingers, through its Proprietor – Mohammad Mustakali s/o Mohammad Saheb Ali
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
Petitioner sought to quash the order dated 18/10/2010 of the Appellate Tribunal and the order dated 28/3/2007 of the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner.
Filing Reason
Petitioner was held to be in default of remittances under the Act; appeal before Tribunal was dismissed for non-prosecution.
Previous Decisions
Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner passed order under Section 7A on 28/3/2007 holding petitioner in default. Appellate Tribunal dismissed appeal on 18/10/2010.
Issues
Whether the Appellate Tribunal erred in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution when the petitioner's counsel had sought an adjournment.
Whether the order under Section 7A was sustainable on merits.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the Tribunal ought to have considered the adjournment application and not dismissed the appeal.
Respondent supported the Tribunal's order, stating that the petitioner failed to appear despite being given an opportunity.
Ratio Decidendi
The Appellate Tribunal was justified in dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution when the petitioner failed to appear on the adjourned date despite having sought an adjournment. No interference is warranted under Article 226.
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.
In the light of the above, I do not see any merit in the above petition. The same is accordingly dismissed. Rule discharged. In the circumstances, parties to bear their own costs.
Procedural History
Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner passed order under Section 7A on 28/3/2007. Petitioner filed appeal before Employees' Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal (ATA No. 395(9)2007). Tribunal dismissed appeal on 18/10/2010. Petitioner filed Writ Petition No.999 of 2011 before Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, which was dismissed on 13/7/2011.
Acts & Sections
- Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952: Section 7A
