BEHL HOSPITAL Vs. ASST PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Authority under Section 7A of the Employee's Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, Asstt. Provident Fund Commissioner passed an order on 23rd October, 2007 whereby the amount of Rs. 6,27,879 on account of the provident fund dues etc. came to be assessed, ex-parte, and the petitioner was called upon to make the payment within fifteen days. According to the petitioner's case, that was an ex-parte order though, on one date, petitioner's representative had appeared before the Authority. Since the petitioner felt that for some good reasons its representative could not appear before the Asstt. Provident Fund Commissioner during the pendency of the assessment proceedings on some dates as recorded in the order dated 23rd October, 2007, he wrote a letter dated 12th November, 2007 to the Asstt. Provident Fund Commissioner giving therein the reasons because of which necessary records could not be produced during the assessment proceedings. He sought an opportunity to produce the records. It is not in dispute that this letter dated 12th November, 2007 was received by the Authority on the same day itself. However, the Authority under Section 7-A did not take cognizance of that letter. The petitioner's case is that subsequently on being advised a formal review application was also moved on 28th January, 2008. However, the Authority did not take notice of even that review application and instead initiated further proceedings to recover aforesaid dues. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal before the EPF Appellate Tribunal which was registered as ATA No. 818 (4) 2008. Before the Appellate Authority one of the grievances raised by the appellant was that its review application had not been disposed of. The Appellate Authority vide its order dated 22nd August, 2008 without going into the merits of the case remanded back the matter to the Authority to dispose of the review petition filed before it within a period of 30 days and the recovery of dues was stayed till the decision of the review petition. It appears that before the passing of the said order by the Appellate Tribunal the Authority had already passed an order on 7th March, 2008 rejecting the application which the petitioner had moved on 28th January, 2008 as being time barred.

(2.) On getting information about the said order dated 7th March, 2008 the petitioner once again approached the Appellate Tribunal bringing to the notice of the Tribunal in its disposed of appeal ATA No. 818 (4) 2008 that its review petition had been disposed of. The Appellate Tribunal, however, did not deal with the correctness of the review order and instead passed an order that the appellant, petitioner herein, should have filed a fresh appeal instead of praying for re-opening of the appeal already disposed of on 22nd August, 2008. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a fresh appeal which came to be rejected by the Appellate Tribunal vide its order dated 7th February, 2011. In that appeal also the petitioner had challenged the original order under Section 7-A dated 23rd October, 2007 and had also made a reference to its representation dated 12th November, 2007 as well as formal review application dated 28th January, 2008 and had also raised a grievance that there were good reasons for petitioner's non-appearance before the Competent Authority under Section 7-A on some dates due to which ex-parte assessment of its liability came to be made on 23rd October, 2007. The learned Appellate Tribunal vide order dated 7th February, 2011 rejected the appeal primarily on the ground that the appellant had failed to place on record necessary material during the proceedings under Section 7-A. Thereafter the petitioner filed a review application before the Appellate Tribunal which also came to be rejected vide order dated 16th May, 2011.

(3.) Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.