1 W.P.No.4010/11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.4010 OF 2011. Mr.Sanjay S/o Kashinathrao Kale, Age 40 years, Occ.Business, Sole Proprietor, Shri Siddhivinayak Cotton Industries, Office at House No.309, Rangar Chowk, Georai, Dist.Beed (M.S.) ... Petitioner. Versus 1. Union of India, through its Secretary, Ministry of Labour & Employment New Delhi. 2. The Employees Provident Funds Appellate Tribunal, (Ministry of Labour and Employment) core No.II, 4th floor, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi. 3. The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Sub-Regional Office Plot No.2, Town Centre, Commercial Area, Cidco, Aurangabad. ... Respondents. ... Mr.J.N.Singh, advocate for the petitioner. Mr.R.P.Phatke, standing counsel for Union of 2 W.P.No.4010/11 India. Mr.K.B.Choudhari, standing counsel for Respondent No.3. ... CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J. Date : 16.06.2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard. 2. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, taken up for final hearing. 3. The petitioner being aggrieved by the amount of E.P.F. assessed against him filed an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal vide the impugned order dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition. 4. Mr.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that initially notice was issued to the petitioner, directing the petitioner to appear for the hearing to take place on 15.3.2011. Thereafter another notice 3 W.P.No.4010/11 was issued preponing the date of hearing to 21.2.2011. Even the venue of the hearing was changed. Earlier notice was for hearing to take place at Delhi and the subsequent notice was for hearing at Aurangabad. The learned counsel submits that on the date of hearing, the representative of the petitioner appeared and requested for adjournment on the ground that the advocate representing the petitioner is at Delhi and the date earlier given be maintained, still, in the absence of the advocate of the petitioner, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal. Mr.Singh, learned counsel as such submits that the petitioner deserves to be given an opportunity to canvass the stand on merits. 5. Mr.Choudhari, learned counsel for the Respondents vehemently opposes the arguments of the petitioner and submits that the notice was served upon the petitioner. There was no reason for the petitioner to make arrangements for hearing on the said date. It is for the convenience of the litigants that the hearing was scheduled at Aurangabad. The petitioners are 4 W.P.No.4010/11 chronic defaulters. No fault can be found by the order impugned. 6. Perusal of the order, it is manifest that the impugned order is passed in absence of the petitioner or his counsel. No opportunity was given to the petitioner to canvass the arguments on merits of the matter and as such the Tribunal on the basis of the order passed by the assessing authority has delivered the judgment. 7. It is a trite law that when technical considerations and cause for substantial justice are pitted against each other, the cause for substantial justice shall be sub-served. Moreover, the petitioner has shown his bonafides to deposit an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lac) before the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Aurangabad. 8. In light of the above facts, I quash and set aside the impugned order. The Tribunal shall after giving opportunity to all the parties shall decide the appeal afresh on its own merits. 5 W.P.No.4010/11 The petitioner shall deposit the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lac only) with the Assistant Commissioner of Provident Fund, Aurangabad within a period of six (6) weeks from today. 9. Rule made absolute accordingly. However, there shall be no order as to costs. (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.) asp/office/wp4010.2011