1 W.P. 9263.2011 - [ J ] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 9263 OF 2011 People’s Co-operative Bank Ltd., Hingoli, Akola Road, Hingoli Through its Manager Kundlik Vithalrao Ghuge Age : 46 Yrs., Occ. Service, R/o : People’s Co-operative Bank Ltd., Hingoli, branch at Khadkeshwar, Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad. .... PETITIONER V E R S U S The Assistant Commissioner Employees Provident Fund Organization, Sub Regional Office “ Bhavshya Nidhi Bhavan ”, Town Centre, CIDCO, Aurangabad. .... RESPONDENT Mr. Anil S. Bajaj, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.B.Choudhari, Addl. Govt. Pleader for State. CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE OF JUDGMENT : 05/12/2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for the respective parties, taken up for final hearing. 2 W.P. 9263.2011 - [ J ] 2. The petitioner had preferred Appeal before the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal against the order passed by the present respondent U/s 7-A of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act. On the date of hearing, the appellant and his Advocate were absent. The Tribunal thereafter decided the Appeal. The same is assailed in the present Writ Petition. 3. Mr. Bajaj, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Appeal was filed at Delhi. The Advocate at Delhi was engaged to work out the matter, but then the matter was taken up at Aurangabad Camp and the said lawyer from Delhi could not attend the Aurangabad Camp for conducting the matter as he was indisposed. The same was also brought to the notice of the Tribunal, but it was not considered. The Tribunal has not considered the case put-forth by the petitioner in Appeal. 4. Mr. K.B.Choudhari, the learned Additional Govt. Pleader submits that ample opportunity was given to the petitioner but the petitioner chose to remain absent. No fault can be found in the order passed by the Tribunal. 5. The Order itself shows that none had represented the appellant. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the ground put-forth 3 W.P. 9263.2011 - [ J ] by the petitioner. As the petitioner was precluded from putting forth its case on merits and the reason given by the petitioner appears to be bonafide one, I am inclined to afford one more opportunity to the petitioner. 6. In view of the above, the impugned order is quashed and set aside. The parties are relegated before the appellate Tribunal. The appellate Tribunal shall decide the Appeal ATA No. 795/9/2007 afresh after giving opportunity to the parties. The parties shall appear before the appellate Tribunal on 17/01/2012. The petitioner shall pay cost of Rs. 5,000/- [ Rupees Five Thousand only ] to the respondent within the period of four ( 4 ) weeks from today i.e. 04/01/2012. 7. Rule accordingly made absolute in above terms. No costs. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J. ] KNP/W.P. 9263.2011 - [ J ]