- (1.) The petitioner has approached this court impugning the orders dated 4.6.2010 and 16.9.2010 (Annexures P-4 and P-6 respectively) passed by the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal (for short, 'the Tribunal').
(2.) Briefly, the pleaded facts are that the petitioner is running a medical centre. Assessment of provident fund dues of the petitioner was made by Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Chandigarh vide order dated 11.2.2002. The petitioner, being aggrieved, filed appeal before the Tribunal, which was listed on 10.2.2010, when the same was adjourned to 7.7.2010 at Delhi. The appeal was directed to be listed at Chandigarh on 20.5.2010. In the absence of any representation from the petitioner, the order was reserved and the appeal was dismissed on 4.6.2010. Thereafter, even the review application filed by the petitioner was also dismissed vide order dated 16.9.2010. Both the aforesaid orders have been impugned in the present petition.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that ever since the appeal was filed before the Tribunal in the year 2002, the same was pending before the Tribunal, which has its principal seat at Delhi. On 10.2.2010, the same was adjourned for 7.7.2010, however, all of a sudden, a notice dated nil was sent directing listing of the appeal at Chandigarh on 20.5.2010. As the counsel engaged by the petitioner to argue the appeal was from Delhi, a request for adjournment was made, however, while rejecting the same, the Tribunal reserved the appeal for orders and dismissed the same on 4.6.2010. Even the written submissions made by the petitioner were not considered. The review application was also dismissed. The submission is that the process, which was adopted by the Tribunal for fixing the appeal at Chandigarh and deciding the same in a haste when the same was already pending for the last 8 years at Delhi and was not taken up, is totally in violation of the principles of natural justice. The petitioner should have been afforded reasonable opportunity of being heard. The counsel at Delhi had noted the date of hearing as 7.7.2010, but all of a sudden, the appeal was listed at Chandigarh on 20.5.2010. He could not appear as he was already retained for appearance at Lucknow on that day. The nonappearance was not wilful. ;