Bombay High Court
Shiv Shakti Shetkari Sahakari ... vs The Union Of India And Ors on 7 September, 2016
Bench: S.V. Gangapurwala
1 W.P.No.1385/11
UNREPORTED
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT
BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
WRIT PETITION NO.1385 OF 2011.
Shiv Shakti Shetkari Sahakari
Sakhar Karkhana Ltd.,
Washi (Tandulwadi),Dist.
Osmanabad, through its
Chairman Shri Panditrao
S/o Ganpatrao Chede,
Aged 76 years, Occ.Agril.,
R/o Washi, Dist.
Osmanabad. ... Petitioner.
Versus
1. The Union of India.
2. The Asstt. Provident
Fund Commissioner,
Solapur.
3. The State of Maharashtra
through the Secretary
to the Government of
Maharashtra, in the
Department of Labour,
Mantralaya, Fort, Mumbai. ... Respondents.
...
Mr.S.S.Choudhari, advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.V.S.Badakh, A.G.P. for the State.
Mr.K.B.Choudhari, advocate for Respondent No.2.
...
::: Uploaded on - 08/09/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 14/09/2016 23:57:57 :::
2 W.P.No.1385/11
CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA AND
V.K.JADHAV,JJ.
Date : 07.09.2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per S.V.Gangapurwala,J.)
1. Heard.
2. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With
the consent of the parties, the petition is taken
up for final hearing.
3. Mr.Choudhari, learned counsel for the
petitioner states that the order U/s 7-A of the
Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous
Provisions Act, 1952, is passed without
considering the documents on record. Even Review
U/s 7-B was disposed of without considering the
documents on record. The appellant could not
remain present before the Appellate Tribunal and
the Appellate Tribunal on merits in absence of
the present petitioner dismissed the appeal. The
learned counsel submits that the sugar factory
was closed for some time. Many of the
workers/labours were not employed during the said
period and even salary and wages for the said
period has been considered while adjudicating the
liability of the petitioner. According to the
learned counsel, erroneous calculations are made.
Only ledger was seen and not the other documents.
4. Mr.Choudhari, learned counsel for the
Respondent submits that the total amount due as
per the order passed by the authority and the
subject matter of the present Writ Petition has
been recovered. The petitioners on their own
volition have deposited the said amount. The
learned counsel submits that the petitioner
remained absent before the Appellate Forum. The
notice was served on the petitioner. No reason
is forthcoming for not appearing on the date the
matter was fixed.
5. We have considered the submissions. We
have also gone through the order passed by the
Tribunal in appeal.
6. If the appellant remains absent in an
appeal, the course open to the Appellate
Authority would be to dismiss the appeal for non-
prosecution or for default but ought not to have
decided it on merits.
7. Even if we consider that the
Respondents have decided it on merits, perusal of
the judgment, it is manifest that no reasons are
forthcoming in the said judgment. The Tribunal
ought to have given reasons for not accepting the
case put forth by the petitioner in its appeal.
It has also not dealt with the grounds raised in
the appeal.
8. Considering the fact that the appeal is
decided in absence of the appellants, we are
inclined to grant one more opportunity to the
petitioner, however, the petitioner also deserves
to be mulct with costs.
9. In the result, we pass the following
order :
a) The impugned judgment and order passed
by the Employees' Provident Fund Appellate
Tribunal dated 25.9.2010, is quashed and set
aside subject to payment of cost of Rs.20,000/-
(Rupees twenty thousand) by the petitioner to the
Respondent No.2 on or before 23th October, 2016.
The matter is remitted back to the Appellate
Tribunal for deciding it on merits. The
appellant shall appear before the Appellate
Tribunal on 26th October, 2016.
b) Rule accordingly made absolute in above
terms. No costs.
Sd/- Sd/-
(V.K.JADHAV,J.) (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.)
asp/office/wp1385.11
