BUILTECH FOUNDATIONS Vs. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER (C)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Dated this the 24th day of September 2019 The issue arises under Employees Provident Funds Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1962. The petitioner challenges Ext.P1 order made under Section 7A of the Act as illegal and violative of principles of natural justice.

(2.) Adv.P.S.Gireesh referring to the dates of hearing noted by the first respondent in Ext.P1 order contends that the order in Ext.P1 is illegal and violative of principles of natural justice. According to him, the instant case cannot be treated as a case where the party is not co- operative with the authorities for disposing of the case taken up under Section 7A of the Act. The matter stood adjourned on more than one occasion due to administrative reasons. The petitioner was absent on 13.3.2018 and instead of disposing of the matter, if one more adjournment is granted the petitioner would have been in a position to place the substantive defence the petitioner has against his instant enquiry. He prays for setting aside the order and remitting the matter to the first respondent for consideration and disposal in accordance with law. To prove the bona fides it is stated that the petitioner will also deposit Rs.60,000/- without prejudice to petitioner's rights and contentions with the first respondent.

(3.) Adv.Sanjeev Kumar tries to sustain the order by referring to the number of opportunities given by first respondent before passing the order in Ext.P1. As per the argument of counsel for first respondent, the petitioner ought to work out the remedy of appeal.