JYOTI SINGH,J. - (1.)Present petition has been filed assailing the order dtd. 19/11/2020 whereby the applications filed by the Petitioner for restoration of the appeal and condonation of delay in filing the restoration application have been dismissed.
(2.)Petitioner is a partnership firm with two partners. An Assessment Order was passed by Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Faridabad under Sec. 7(A) of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the 'the Act') on 29/11/2012 assessing Rs.6,55,380.00 allegedly payable by the Petitioner establishment. The said order was challenged by the Petitioner by an appeal before the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal (now Central Government Industrial Tribunal), Delhi, in the year 2013, being ATA No. 184(16) 2013. Appeal was admitted on 19/3/2013, subject to deposit of 25% of the assessed amount.
(3.)The appeal was dismissed in default on 10/5/2016 due to non-appearance of the Petitioner, but was restored on 6/6/2016. Yet again, when the appeal was listed on 14/12/2016, there was no appearance on behalf of the Petitioner and the CGIT dismissed the appeal in default. After a lapse of nearly 3 years, Petitioner filed an application for restoration of the appeal along with an application for condonation of delay. However, the CGIT vide order dtd. 19/11/2020 dismissed both the applications on the ground that several adjournments had been allowed to the Petitioner for hearing and even on earlier occasion i.e. on 10/5/2016, the appeal was dismissed in default, indicating lack of diligence on the part of the Petitioner in the conduct of the appeal. CGIT was of the view that the explanation for non-appearance and condonation of delay mentioned in the applications, was not convincing to the conscience of the Tribunal.