CENTRAL BOARD OF TRUSTEES, EPF Vs. NANCY KRAFTS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide the present petition, the petitioner impugns the order dated 23rd September, 2014 passed by the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "Tribunal") in A.T.A. No.216(04) 2010. The Tribunal has vide its impugned order allowed the Respondent's appeal, thereby setting aside the orders dated 15th December, 2009 and 25th March, 2010 passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Delhi.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the aforesaid appeal had been dismissed by the Tribunal vide its order passed on 8th April, 2014, whereafter the impugned order has been passed allowing the same appeal which already stood dismissed and that too without even referring to its earlier order dated 8th April, 2014. She, therefore, contends that the impugned order is liable to be set aside on this ground alone as the Tribunal did not have the power to pass a fresh order allowing the same appeal which already stood rejected by its previous order.

(3.) On the other hand, Mr.Rajiv Arora, learned counsel for the respondent states that the order dated 8th April, 2014, dismissing the appeal has been passed by referring to facts of some other case, which is evident from a bare perusal of para 2 of the said order as it refers to a notice issued by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Kandivali, whereas the respondent is situated in Delhi and the matter pertains to an order passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Delhi. He further states that the said order was passed on a gazetted holiday when the Tribunal was closed and, therefore, there was no question of any hearing taking place on the said date i.e. 8 th April, 2014. He submits that in these circumstances, the respondent had moved an application under Section 7-L (2) of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), seeking review of the order dated 8th April, 2014 based on which the present impugned order has been passed. He, therefore, contends that the Tribunal was fully justified in reviewing its earlier order dated 8th April, 2014 and passing a fresh order, after it found that the earlier order dismissing the appeal had been passed on the basis of the facts of some other case. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition be dismissed.