1 wp6616.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6616 OF 2010 Maruti Dal Udyog, proprietor Sow. Sushila Shamsunder Biyani, aged about 46 years, Occ: Business, Plot No.96,100, S.No.125, Industrial Estate, Latur-431 531 and r/o "Shrihari Krupa Apartments" Signal Camp, LATUR 413 531. ...PETITIONER VERSUS The Asstt. Provident Funds Commissioner, E.P.F.O.S.R.O. 165 A Railway Lines, Survase Towers, SOLAPUR 413 001. ...RESPONDENT ... Mr. V.N. Upadhye, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. K.B. Choudhari, Advocate for respondent sole. ... CORAM: S.S. SHINDE, J. DATE : 12TH SEPTEMBER, 2011 PER COURT : . This writ petition takes exception to the orders dated 11-06-2002 and 27-06-2002 passed by the respondent herein, under Section 7A of the 2 wp6616.10 Employees' Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and also to the order dated 31-03-2010 in Appeal No. ATA No.341(9) 2002 passed by the Employees Provident Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi. 2. This matter was heard for some time in the morning session. On the request of learned Counsel appearing for the respondent, the matter was kept back so as to seek instructions from the respondent authorities. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent on instructions from the Regional Provident Funds Commissioner II, Solapur submits that, he has no objection if the impugned orders are set aside and the matter is remanded back to the respondent. 3. On perusal of the impugned order passed by the Appellate Tribunal, it is abundantly clear that, the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal is without calling Record and Proceedings from the respondent as provided under relevant rules. 3 wp6616.10 That apart, from careful reading of the order of the Appellate Tribunal, it gives impression that such order is passed without referring to any particular documents. Therefore, such order passed by the Appellate Tribunal is impermissible. The right of appeal is a valuable right of the parties and it is expected that, the appellate authority after summoning the relevant record should pass the order in appeal. 4. In that view of the matter, the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal cannot be sustained. However, since it is agreed between the parties that, the matter may be remanded back to the respondent for fresh adjudication, in that view of the matter, the impugned orders passed by the respondent and the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi are quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded back to the respondent for hearing afresh, in accordance with law. It is needless to mention that, the respondent after giving reasonable opportunity of 4 wp6616.10 hearing to the petitioner will pass appropriate orders. It is further clarified that, the amount deposited by the petitioner will remain with the authorities till disposal of the inquiry. Writ Petition is allowed to the above extent and stands disposed of. . It is needless to mention that, while adjudicating the matter afresh and while conducting the inquiry, the respondent without being influenced by any observations made in its own earlier orders or any observations in the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal, should proceed to adjudicate the matter. [S.S. SHINDE, J.] sut/SEP11