Allowed

The Sadalga Urban Souharda Sahakari, Bank Niyamit, v. the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Office

Karnataka HC16 Mar 2017WP/68328/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that the EPF Appellate Tribunal violated natural justice and was not justified in dismissing the petitioner's appeal for want of prosecution after receiving notice of inability to appear. The writ petition was allowed.

What did the court decide?

The orders of the Tribunal dismissing the appeal and the recall application are quashed. The matter is remanded to the Tribunal to decide the appeal on merits.

The Sadalga Urban Souharda Sahakari, Bank… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 16^th DAY OF MARCH 2017

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI

¶5

WRIT PETITION No.68328 OF 2010 (L-PF)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

THE SADALGA URBAN SOUHARDA SAHAKARI BANK NIYAMIT, SADALGA, TQ: CHIKKODI, DIST:BELGAUM REP BY ITS INCHARGE GENERAL MANAGER AJIT S/O.BANDU KHOT, AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC:GENERAL MANAGER (I/c), R/O.SADALGA, TQ:CHIKKODI DIST:BELGAUM

¶8

... PETITIONER

¶9

(By Sri A S PATIL ADV.)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAVAN, NO.13, RAJA RAM MOHAN ROY ROAD, BANGALORE -560027

¶12

THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER II

¶13

4TH FLOOR SRINATH COMPLEX, NCM

¶14

�

¶15

Date of Order 16.03.2017 WP No.68328/2010 The Sadalga Urban Souharda Sahakari Bank Niyamit, Sadalga Vs. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner & others

¶16

HUBLI-580029, DIST:DHARWAD

¶17

THE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND, BELGAUM DIVISION-I, DIST:BELGAUM

¶18

... RESPONDENTS

¶19

(By Sri. M.B.KANAVI ADV. FOR R1; P.V.GUNJAL ADV. FOR R2)

¶20

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED:31/03/2010, PASSED BY THE HON'BLE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NEW DELHI IN APPEAL NO.ATA 427(6)2002, AS PER ANNEXURE-F AND FURTHER TO DIRECT THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL TO RESTORE THE APPEAL FILED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER BANK IN ATA NO.427(6)2002 AND TO DISPOSE THE SAME ON MERITS.

¶21

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶22

�

¶23

Date of Order 16.03.2017 WP No.68328/2010 The Sadalga Urban Souharda Sahakari Bank Niyamit, Sadalga Vs. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner & others

¶24

O R D E R

¶25

Mr. A.S.Patil, Adv. for petitioner. Mr. M.B.Kanavi , Adv. for respondent No.1, Mr. P.V.Gunjal, Adv. for respondent No.2.

¶26

1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the orders passed by

¶27

the respondent Employees’ Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal who dismissed the appeal of the petitioner for want of prosecution on 29^th December 2009 and even the recalling application was rejected by it on 31^st March 2010.

¶28

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted before

¶29

this Court that the matter was pending before the Principal Bench of the Employees’ Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal at New-Delhi and the same was notified to be heard at Bengaluru Camp, since the petitioner belonged to Bengaluru. But, the petitioner specifically informed the respondent-Tribunal vide Annexure ‘E’ communication dated 21^st December 2009 that it is not convenient for it to appear at Bengaluru on 29^th

¶30

�

¶31

Date of Order 16.03.2017 WP No.68328/2010 The Sadalga Urban Souharda Sahakari Bank Niyamit, Sadalga Vs. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner & others

¶32

December 2009 . Ignoring the said communication, the Appellate Tribunal dismissed the said appeal in default of appearance on 29^th December 2009 vide Annexure ‘D’ and the application for recall filed on 09^th March 2010 was also dismissed as filed belatedly, by the impugned order at Annexure ‘F’ dated 31^st March 2010.

¶33

Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the Tribunal was not justified in rejecting the appeal of the petitioner in these circumstances, and ought to have restored the appeal for the decision on merits afresh.

¶34

It should be the endeavour of the Appellate Tribunals constituted under the special enactments to decide the controversy on merits, rather than feel trigger happy in rejecting the appeals for technical reasons or dismiss the appeals in default of appearance as far as possible, and unless the

¶35

�

¶36

Date of Order 16.03.2017 WP No.68328/2010 The Sadalga Urban Souharda Sahakari Bank Niyamit, Sadalga Vs. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner & others

¶37

appellant has persistently failed to appear and prosecute the appeal on merits, the Tribunals cannot and should not dismiss

¶38

such appeals for want of prosecution. Nothing of this sort is seen in the present case and despite specific request by the petitioner that the matter may be kept pending at the Principal Bench at Delhi, the learned Tribunal could not have dismissed the appeal for default on appearance at its Camp sitting at Bengaluru on 29^th December 2009.

¶39

To retrieve the situation, the Tribunal did not even allow the application for recall on 31^st March 2010. The principles of natural justice have been thus apparently breached in the present case by the learned Tribunal.

¶40

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed and setting aside both the orders Annexure ‘D’ dated 29^th December 2009 and Annexure ‘F’ order dated 31^st March 2010 and condoning the delay, if any, on the part of the petitioner, the

¶41

�

¶42

Date of Order 16.03.2017 WP No.68328/2010 The Sadalga Urban Souharda Sahakari Bank Niyamit, Sadalga Vs. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner & others

¶43

matter is remanded back to the learned Employees’ Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal , New Delhi , to decide the appeal of the petitioner on merits in accordance with law, after giving opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties.

¶44

The parties, without any further notice, in the first instance, may appear before the learned Tribunal on 18^th April 2017 , Tuesday .

¶45

The deposits, if any, made under the interim orders of this Court, shall remain subject to the final decision by the learned Tribunal. No costs.

¶46

Sd/JUDGE

¶47

RK/-

The Sadalga Urban Souharda Sahakari, Bank Niyamit, v. the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Office

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Sadalga Urban Souharda Sahakari, Bank Niyamit, v. the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Office

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Gowri Infraengineers Pvt. Ltd., Vs M/S P G Setty Construction

The Divisional Controller, Vs S G Kulkarni

Mahesh Channappa Huddar Vs State of Karnataka

The K. L. E. Society, Vs Sri. Gangadhar S/O Basappa Badigannavar

The K. L. E. Society, Vs Sri. Ganapati Ramachandra Buwa

The Sadalga Urban Souharda Vs the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner