STANDARD FURNITURE (UNIT OS SUDARSAN TRADING CO LTD) Vs. REGISTRAR, EPF APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant is the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.26211/2014. That Writ Petition was filed challenging an order dated 22.12.2009, by which an appeal filed by the appellant before the Employees' Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal was dismissed for non-prosecution. The appeal was filed challenging an order imposing damages under Section 14B of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). Though the appellant applied for restoration of the appeal, that application was also dismissed on the ground that the said application itself was filed almost four years after the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution. The learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition noticing the fact that the appellant had earlier approached this Court through a Writ Petition numbered as W.P.(C)No.35167/2005, which was disposed of on 16.12.2005 directing that the appeal filed by the appellant shall be heard and decided by the Appellate Tribunal within four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment and further directing that recovery proceedings shall be kept in abeyance, pending disposal of the appeal. The learned Single Judge found that the appellant had no case that the judgment of this Court in W.P.(C)No.35167/2005 was produced before the Appellate Tribunal and further found that the appellant had enjoyed the benefit of the stay for all these years and had no real interest in prosecuting the appeal filed before the Appellate Tribunal, on merits. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge, the appellant has filed the present appeal.

(2.) We have heard Sri. Raveendra Prasad, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Sri. Thomas Mathew Nellimoottil, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Provident Fund Organization. We would normally be required only to examine the question as to whether the appeal should be restored to file or not. However, after hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondents at length we find that the original order against which the appeal was preferred is illegal as we will shortly demonstrate. It does not disclose the consideration of any relevant material for concluding that damages have to be levied under Section 14B of the Act. We are of the view that no purpose would be served by directing the restoration of the appeal. The absence of reasons in the original order cannot be cured even if the appellate authority were to supply any reasons. The Supreme Court in Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. L.K. Ratna, 1986 4 SCC 537 held as follows:-

(3.) Ext.P2 is the order which was challenged by filing an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. Ext.P2 is an order dated 1.6.2004 imposing damages under Section 14B of the Act. An amount of Rs.9,93,386/- has been imposed as damages for the period from January 1996 to June 2002. It is admitted before us that the contributions payable in terms of the provisions of the Act have already been remitted by the appellant. It is also not disputed that interest in terms of Section 7Q of the Act has also been remitted. We find that Ext.P2 is an order issued in printed form and the only reason stated for imposing damages is the following:-