D. K. Seth, J. - (1.) The judgment was dictated in open Court on 28th January. 1999. At the time of correction of the said judgment, it appeared that there were some grey areas which needed clarification. By order dated 19th February, 1999, an opportunity was given to both the counsel to address the Court on the question of such clarification proposed to be made in the judgment. Mr. S. P. Mehrotra, learned counsel for respondents had expressed his regret that he could not draw the attention of the Court to the fact that the case of the petitioner was not governed by the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act. 1952 (E.P.F. for short) on which the decision was rendered. On account of incorrect instruction, he could not point out that it was Provident Fund Act. 1925 (G.P.F. for short) under which the case was governed. He further pointed out that the pleadings made in the writ petition was not clear. The petition did not disclose the correct situation. which was another factor for committing such mistake by him. Therefore, he prayed that the dictated order may not be signed and be recalled and the matter be re-heard. Mr. H. P. Misra did not raise any objection.
(2.) It seemed that there were some substance in the submission of Mr. Mehrotra. He prayed for leave to file counter-affidavit. Accordingly. directions were so given.
(3.) With the leave of the Court, Mr. Mehrotra filed his counter-affidavit to which rejoinder-affidavit has also been filed. The counter- affidavit is not placed on record. The office is directed to trace out the counter-affidavit filed on 29th May, 1999 and place it on record. However, for the sake of convenience, a copy of the counter-affidavit has been furnished by Mr. Mehrotra which is taken on record.;