Remanded

Osrtc,Bhubaneswar v. E.P.F. Appellate Tri

Orissa HC18 Feb 2020WP(C)/29453/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held the appellate order unsustainable due to failure to address the ex parte nature of the 7-A proceeding. It remitted the matter to the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, directing the petitioner to make a statutory deposit and allowing limited time for the fresh adjudication within three months, scheduling appearance by 19.03.2020.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of; matter remanded to Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner for fresh adjudication; appearance fixed for 19.03.2020 along with deposit.

Osrtc,Bhubaneswar Vs E.P.F. Appellate Tri — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Orissa HC (2020)

¶1

W.P.(C) No.29453 of 2013

¶2

18.02.2020 Heard Mr. A.K. Mohanty-A, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.K.Das, learned counsel for the opposite party nos.2 and 3.

¶3

This writ petition involves a challenge at Annexure-1 as well as the appellate order involving the proceedings under the provisions of the Employees’ Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short ‘EPF & MP Act, 1952’)

¶4

Referring to the background involving the case of the petitioner, Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that even though some opportunity had been provided to the petitioner to defend their case in the 7-A proceeding, however for the financial stringency at the relevant point of time petitioner company could not defend its case by appearing before the authority and as a consequence an ex parte order under Section 7-A of EPF & MP Act, 1952 has been passed vide Annexure-1. Consequence of suffering, vide Annexure-1 petitioner preferred appeal, this appeal has been decided in a cryptic manner and without taking into consideration the grounds raised therein.

¶5

Referring to the order of the appellate authority Mr. Mohanty demonstrated his case of nonconsideration of the ground made by the appellant by the Appellate Authority vide Annexure-4.

¶6

Sri Das, learned counsel appearing for the contesting opposite party however opposed the claim of

¶7

uks

¶8

¶9

the petitioner by referring to the discussion in the 7-A order that in spite of repeated opportunities on three dates, petitioner did not appear rather forced the authority to decide on its own. As a consequence, the 7-A authority decided the matter on the basis of materials available on record. So far as appellate order is concerned, Sri Das referring to the recording at Para2 submitted that for the limited approach before the appellate authority, the appellate authority did no wrong in passing the impugned order. It is in the circumstances Sri Das supported the decision impugned herein.

¶10

Considering the rival contentions of the parties in the first hand and looking to the allegation in respect of the 7-A order, this Court finds no doubt the 7-A proceeding was adjourned on three dates, particularly on 06.06.2003, 30.06.2003 and finally 21.07.2003 but for the recording therein it appears there is no hearing involving the dispute involved therein and the assessment has been made only on the basis of materials available on record. Now coming to the plea taken in the memorandum of appeal, this Court finds there is ex parte hearing involved in the 7-A proceeding. It is on the non-consideration of grounds involving the appeal memorandum, this Court observes the appellate authority should have first decided on the question of ex parte hearing and then to proceed to decide the matter on merit in absence of which, the appellate order is not sustainable. However since 7-A

¶11

¶12

proceeding is to recommence, this Court while remitting the matter back to the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Odisha, Bhubaneswar observes in the event the petitioner has made statutory deposit of 50% of the 7-A determination before the appellate authority, the said amount shall be retained till fresh adjudication of the 7-A proceeding is made. Further in the event there is no deposit before the appellate authority and the deposit has been exempted by the appellate authority, the petitioner is directed to deposit at least 30% of the 7-A determination to avail the opportunity of hearing by making the deposit within a period of four weeks. The 7-A proceeding will also be concluded within a period of three months. This Court therefore fix the date of appearance and production of copy of the order on 19.03.2020 along with the deposit.

¶13

Writ petition is accordingly disposed of. Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.

¶14

…....……………………… Biswanath Rath, J.

¶15

¶16

¶17

Osrtc,Bhubaneswar v. E.P.F. Appellate Tri

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Osrtc,Bhubaneswar v. E.P.F. Appellate Tri

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tankadhar Nayak Vs C.R.P.F. and Ors.

Giridhari Kisan Vs Santosh Ku.Raksha

K.Bijay Bhaskar Redd Vs Director General

Ashok K.Mishra Vs Indust.Dev.Corp.Ori

Sanjaya Kumar Pattanaik Vs v.v.Yadav

Ghana Shyam Panda Vs State of Odisha