ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Bhagalpur, had put to challenge an order dated 07.09.2009 passed by the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), whereby the Tribunal had quashed the order dated 22.01.2003, passed under Section 7A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, assessing provident fund dues, after clubbing respondent No.2 establishment with M/s Harsha Restaurant; by filing a writ application giving rise to C.W.J.C. No. 9208 of 2010. The said writ application has been dismissed by a learned single Judge of this Court by an order dated 24.09.2013. The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Bhagalpur, has put to challenge the said order dated 24.09.2013 in the present appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of this Court.

(2.) Be it noted, at the outset, that the writ application was preferred by the appellant questioning the order of the Tribunal passed under Section 7-I of the Act and not the Central Board of Trustees. In the present appeal, I.A. No. 4692 of 2016 was filed for amending memo of parties as occurring in the memo of appeal by substituting the parties, mentioned in paragraph 1 of the application. This Court, by order dated 10.04.2018, rejected I.A. No. 4692 of 2016 on the principle that the party, who initiates the proceeding, only has a right to maintain the appeal unless there is succession by substitution in accordance with law.

(3.) A question has arisen in the present proceeding, inter alia, as to whether the appellant, being the adjudicating authority under Section 7-A of the Act, could question the decision of his appellate authority, i.e. the Tribunal, by filing the writ application before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, merely because its order of adjudication has been set aside by the Appellate Tribunal.