CENTRAL BOARD OF TRUSTEES, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION THR ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER & ORS Vs. MRITUNJAY KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I.A. No. 6824 of 2018

(2.) Present application is preferred by the applicant hereinoriginal appellant to review the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court dated 06.11.2017 passed in L.P.A. No. 1442 of 2015 on the ground that, in fact, before passing the order under Section 7A of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, the enquiry was conducted by the Inspector and it was noticed and found that more than 20 persons were working and, therefore, the concerned employer was subjected to the provisions of the Employee Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, however, it is required to be noted that the main Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed on the ground of unexplained delay of 967 days also for which even there is no explanation in the present review application also.

(3.) Even otherwise, it is required to be noted that now the document, which the applicant proposes to rely upon, was neither reflected in the order under Section 7A nor the same was produced before the learned Single Judge nor even the same was produced in the appeal proceedings before the Division Bench. As observed by the Division Bench and even the learned Single Judge, the order passed under Section 7A was a cryptic order and, therefore, the same was rightly set aside.