DINESH CHANDRAN Vs. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M/s. Chandra Cashew Company is an establishment covered under the provisions of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. For belated remittances, proceedings were initiated against the said establishment under Section 14B and 7Q of the Act. The petitioner herein is the proprietor of the said concern. The petitioner challenged the said order before the Tribunal, which was at New Delhi. The case was later made over to the Appellate Tribunal at Banglore from where it was made over to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Ernakulam. The Tribunal issued notice to the petitioner calling upon him to appear on 30.12.2019. According to the petitioner, the entire records were with the counsel at New Delhi and he was expecting his counsel to appear. On 21.1.2020, a notice of demand was issued to the petitioner which was received by him on 23.1.2020. It was only then that he realized that his appeal was dismissed for default. He has now approached this Court seeking to quash Ext.P1 order and also for a direction to the Appellate Tribunal to restore the appeal and to keep coercive proceedings in abeyance till then.

(2.) Heard Sri.R.Arun, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents.

(3.) Rule 15 of the Employees' Provident Funds Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1997 enables the petitioner herein to prefer an application within 30 days from the date of dismissal and satisfy the Tribunal that there was sufficient cause. According to the petitioner, he came to know about the dismissal of the appeal for default, only when notice of demand was served on him. It is for the petitioner to approach the Appellate Tribunal and seek restoration.