Allowed

M/s. A.P. Central Power Distribution Company Ltd. v. The REgional Provident Fund Commissiner

Telangana HC18 Sept 2018WP/7546/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the writ petition by issuing a direction to the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal to set aside an ex parte order and afford an opportunity of hearing to both parties to decide the matter on merits.

What did the court decide?

O Direction to the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal to set aside the impugned order and hear both parties and pass an order on merits.

M/s. A.P. Central Power Distribution Company Ltd… — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2018)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE U.DURGA PRASAD RAO

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.7546 OF 2011

¶3

ORDER:

¶4

The petitioner seeks writ of certiorari calling for records connected with the orders of the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal dated 24.01.2011 passed in ATA No.528(1) of 2006 and Order No.AP/HYD/44152/PD/247/2006/371, dated 20.07.2006, imposing interest and damages totaling Rs.11,27,597/- issued by the 1^st respondent and set aside the same as illegal and arbitrary.

¶5

Respondents filed counter and opposed the writ petition.

¶6

The petitioner challenges the order in ATA No.528(1) of 2006 passed by the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi. When the said order dated 24.01.2011 is perused, it would appear the writ petitioner, who is the appellant therein, has not appeared and advanced arguments and therefore, the appellate authority on hearing the counsel for respondent reserved the matter and dismissed the appeal.

¶7

Now the submission of learned counsel for petitioner is that he is having an arguable case to challenge the damages and interest claimed by the 1^st respondent and unless an opportunity is given to him to present his arguments before the Appellate Authority, the petitioner would suffer hardship

¶8

¶9

and therefore, an opportunity may be given to it. Learned counsel for petitioner would further submit that the petitioner is a Government Corporation and an opportunity be accorded to put forth its case before the Appellate Authority.

¶10

Having regard to the fact that in the appeal, the appellant has not put forth its arguments and the appeal was disposed of ex parte and also considering that the valuable rights of the party are at stake, the order in ATA No.528(1) of 2006, dated 20.07.2006 is set aside and the appellate authority is directed to hear both parties and pass an appropriate order on merits. Before hearing, notice is to be given to both parties giving date of hearing.

¶11

Accordingly, with the above direction, this writ petition is disposed of. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶12

U.DURGA PRASAD RAO, J

¶13

18.09.2018 SS

M/s. A.P. Central Power Distribution Company Ltd. v. The REgional Provident Fund Commissiner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. A.P. Central Power Distribution Company Ltd. v. The REgional Provident Fund Commissiner

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

Siddavaram Madhur Sudan Rao S/o. S.P.Penchalaiah Vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, Rep. by its

Javvaji Bharathi Vs The Joint Secretary

M/s Raghava -Bvsr(Jv) Vs The Principal Secretary

Fathenagar Land Colonisation Society, Vs The Govt. of Ap

Pannala Malla Reddy Vs Katla Venkanna

Sri Kameswari Type Foundry, Guntur District Vs State Bank of Hyderabad, Guntur