Allowed

The Sadalga Urban Souharda v. the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner

Karnataka HC16 Mar 2017WP/68329/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner Bank challenged the PF Appellate Tribunal's dismissal of its appeal for default of appearance and rejection of recall application. High Court held Tribunal erred in dismissals ignoring petitioner's venue concerns and breached natural justice, allowing the petition and remanding for merits.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders dated 30.12.2009 and 31.03.2010 set aside; matter remanded to PF Appellate Tribunal to decide appeal on merits.

The Sadalga Urban Souharda Vs the Regional… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | 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.68329 OF 2010 (L-PF)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

THE SADALGA URBAN SOUHARDA SAHAKARI, BANK NIYAMAT, SADALAGA TQ: CHIKKODI, DIST: BELGAUM. REP. BY ITS INCHARGE GENERAL MANAGER SHRI. A.B. KHOT.

¶8

AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: GENERAL MANAGER (I/c) R/O: SADALAGA, TQ: CHIKODI, DIST:BELGAUM.

¶9

... PETITIONER

¶10

(By Sri. A S PATIL ADV.)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAVAN NO.13, RAJA RAM MOHAN ROY ROAD, BANGALORE. - 560 027.

¶13

THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER

¶14

4TH FLOOR, SRINATH COMPLEX,

¶15

�

¶16

Date of Order 16.03.2017 WP No.68329/2010 The Sadalga Urban Sahakari Bank Niyamit, SadalgaVs. The Regional PF Commissioner, Bangalore & others

¶17

N C M HUBLI - 580 029, DIST: DHARWAD.

¶18

THE RECOVERY OFFICER EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, SUB-REGIONAL OFFICE, BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAVAN POST BOX NO. 572, SILVA ROAD. MANGALORE -02.

¶19

... RESPONDENTS

¶20

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

¶21

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTED:31/03/2010 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI IN APPEAL NO.ATA.426(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.426(6)2002 AND TO DISPOSE THE SAME ON MERITS.

¶22

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

¶23

�

¶24

Date of Order 16.03.2017 WP No.68329/2010 The Sadalga Urban Sahakari Bank Niyamit, SadalgaVs. The Regional PF Commissioner, Bangalore & others

¶25

O R D E R

¶26

Mr. A.S.Patil, Adv. for petitioner.

¶27

Mr. M.B.Kanavi , Adv. for respondent No.1, Mr. P.V.Gunjal, Adv. for respondent No.2.

¶28

The petitioner is aggrieved by the orders passed by

¶29

the respondent Employees’ Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal who dismissed the appeal of the petitioner for want of prosecution on 30^th December 2009 and even the recalling application was rejected by it on 31^st March 2010.

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted before

¶31

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 30^th

¶32

December 2009 . Ignoring the said communication, the

¶33

�

¶34

Date of Order 16.03.2017 WP No.68329/2010 The Sadalga Urban Sahakari Bank Niyamit, SadalgaVs. The Regional PF Commissioner, Bangalore & others

¶35

Appellate Tribunal dismissed the said appeal in default of appearance on 30^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.

¶36

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.

¶37

It should be the endeavour of the Appellate

¶38

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

¶39

�

¶40

Date of Order 16.03.2017 WP No.68329/2010 The Sadalga Urban Sahakari Bank Niyamit, SadalgaVs. The Regional PF Commissioner, Bangalore & others

¶41

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 30^th December 2009.

¶42

To retrieve the situation, the Tribunal did not even

¶43

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.

¶44

Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed and

¶45

setting aside both the orders Annexure ‘D’ dated 30^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 matter is remanded back to the learned Employees’ Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal , New Delhi , to decide the appeal of

¶46

�

¶47

Date of Order 16.03.2017 WP No.68329/2010 The Sadalga Urban Sahakari Bank Niyamit, SadalgaVs. The Regional PF Commissioner, Bangalore & others

¶48

the petitioner on merits in accordance with law, after giving opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties.

¶49

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

¶50

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.

¶51

Sd/JUDGE

¶52

RK/-

The Sadalga Urban Souharda v. the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Sadalga Urban Souharda v. the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner

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 Sahakari, Bank Niyamit, Vs the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Office