UNION OF INDIA Vs. PRESS TRUST OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Taken up by consent of the parties for final hearing.

(2.) The respondent thereafter filed an appeal before Employees' Provident Funds Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that there was a delay on the part of the respondent. However, by a cryptic order the Tribunal held that the delay in payment of contribution does not appears to be intentional and that the damages and interest is on the higher side and set aside the order of the Employees' Provident Fund Commissioner.

(3.) A grievance is made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, to my mind, rightly that the order passed by the Tribunal discloses no reasons at all. The Tribunal has held that there was delay on the part of the respondent. Thereafter, the Tribunal stated that the question to be decided is whether the delay is intentional and referred to the decision of the Madras High Court and then straightway came to the conclusion that the delay is not intentional one. All this was done in four sentences, in one paragraph. The Tribunal exercises quasi judicial functions and adjudicate rights of the parties. It is expected that it should give reasons in support of its order. The learned Counsel for the respondent sought to contend that the finding that there was a delay on the part of the respondent is itself incorrect as the respondent has been paying its dues in time. He submitted that in fact excess amount is paid by the respondent. If that be so, this ground which is advanced by the learned Counsel for the respondents has also not been considered in the order. Thus the contentions of both the parties have not been considered by the Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal is invested with the jurisdiction as a final authority under the Act and the disputed questions of facts cannot be decided for the first time in the writ petition, if at all. It will be thus appropriate it the Tribunal is directed to hear the parties and dispose of the appeal by giving a reasoned order.