REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER Vs. PRESIDENT PRESIDING OFFICER EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By order dated 9-4-99 the Presiding Officer Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal partly allowed the appeal filed by the respondent No.2 and remanded the case to the authority under Section 7-A of Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-petitioner herein, for redetermination of the provident fund amount to be levied on respondent No.2, establishment. The said order has been brought on record as Annexure-P-8. It is noticeable that the Tribunal felt that no adequate opportunity was afforded to the respondent No.2 in course of hearing. That apart, other reasons were ascribed by the Tribunal. Feeling dissatisfied the petitioner preferred a review petition. In review petition no notices were issued and the same was rejected vide order dated 16-8-99.

(2.) In course of hearing, Mr. Satish Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, fairly conceded that he has no grievance to give opportunity of hearing to the respondednt No.2 but he has serious objection with regard to the comments expressed by the Presiding Officer, Employees Provident Fund, Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi. Learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court to the language used by the Presiding Officer. It is apposite and appropriate to reproduce the relevant portion of the order which reads as under :-

(3.) Submission of Mr. Sharma is that the Regional Fund Commissioner has deputed an Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner to file a review. A person who is authorised to file a review can file a review. The adjudicating authority is not expected to take exception to this. However, the adjudicating authority has to have respect for the other adjudicating authorities.