APFC , KARNEL Vs. EPF APPLLATE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner impugns the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal by which the appeal of the Respondent has been entertained without compliance of Section 70 of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. While making a reference to the impugned order learned Counsel for the Petitioner has stated that no reasons have been given for dispensing with the requirements of the provisions of Section 70. After hearing learned Counsel for the Petitioner, I am of the considered opinion that the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner merits acceptance. Section 70 is extracted hereunder:

(2.) It is evident that no appeal can be entertained unless there is deposit of 75% of the amount due from the Appellant or as determined by an officer referred to in Section 7A. The proviso to the aforesaid section enables the Tribunal to waive or reduce the amount to be deposited Under Section 70 but if the impugned order is to be seen no justification has been given for dispensing with the provisions of Section 70. The order being non-speaking on this aspect of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the Tribunal has without affording justification by not giving any reasoning has dispensed with the provisions of Section 70 which action is unsustainable in the eyes of law. It is expected of each quasi judicial authority to act fairly and the fairness in exercise of any power has to be based on reasons which are to be reflected in the order.

(3.) For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Appellate Tribunal for re-consideration of the matter regarding the grant of benefit to the Respondents Under Section 70 of the Act. The issue regarding the same as also the grant of stay shall be considered by the Respondents afresh.