1 wp10070.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 10070 OF 2010 Rahuri Tq. Sahakari Kharedi Vikri Sangh Nagar Manmad Road,Tq. Rahuri, Dist. Ahmednagar through it's Manager, Mr. Gopal Paraji Tanpure. ...PETITIONER VERSUS The Asstt. Provident Funds Commissioner, SRO Plot No.l1 Bhavish Nidhi Bhavan, M.I.D.C. Satpur Nashik- 422007 and another. ...RESPONDENTS ... Mr. V.N. Upadhye, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. K.B. Choudhari, Advocate for Resp. No.1. ... CORAM: S.S. SHINDE, J. DATE : 18TH OCTOBER, 2011 PER COURT : . This writ petition takes exception to the order dated 20-09-2010 passed by the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, Camp at Nashik in Appeal No. ATA 779(9) of 2007. 2. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner invited my attention to the grounds 2 wp10070.10 taken in the writ petition and submitted that, main contention of the petitioner is that the amount towards provident fund is deposited with respondent No. 2 Board. However, the said contention raised by the petitioner herein is not considered by the Appellate Tribunal. Apart from the aforesaid ground, the Appellate Tribunal did not call for Record and Proceedings from respondent No.1 Authority before passing orders in the appeal. Therefore, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner relying upon the grounds taken in the petition and also notes of arguments would submit that, this writ petition deserves to be allowed. 3. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No.1 would submit that, the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal is a speaking order and has considered that the principles of natural justice have been followed and therefore, this Court may not interfere in the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal. Learned 3 wp10070.10 Counsel also invited my attention to the averments in the affidavit in reply and submitted that, this Court may not interfere in the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal. 4. I have given due consideration to the rival submissions. Upon perusal of the impugned order, it is abundantly clear that, no Record and Proceedings were called from respondent No.1 before orders are passed by the Appellate Tribunal. The contention of the petitioner that, amount towards provident fund has been deposited with respondent No.2, is not considered at all by the Appellate Tribunal. It was open for the Appellate Tribunal to consider the submissions of the appellant and then pass the appropriate orders. That apart, the right of the appeal is a valuable right of the parties and from the impugned order of the Appellate Tribunal, it appears that, the Appellate Tribunal has dealt with the appeal in a casual manner. The reasons assigned are cryptic reasons. 4 wp10070.10 5. In that view of the matter, the impugned order dated 20-09-2010 passed by the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, Camp at Nashik in Appeal being ATA No. 779(9) of 2007 is quashed and set aside. Appeal being ATA No. 779(9) of 2007 is restored to its original file. 6. The Appellate Tribunal to hear the parties afresh and pass appropriate orders in the aforesaid appeal within four months from today. 7. Though respondent No. 2 is served and appearance is entered on behalf of respondent No. 2, when the matter is taken up for hearing, none appeared for respondent No.2. Respondent No. 2 is directed to deposit the amount of provident fund deposited by the appellant with it, with respondent No.1 Authority within one month from today. Said amount shall remain with respondent respondent No.1 till disposal of the 5 wp10070.10 appeal. 8. On depositing amount by respondent No.2 Board with respondent No.1, there shall be stay to the execution of the order passed by respondent No.1. 9. Writ Petition is allowed to the above extent and stands disposed of. [S.S. SHINDE, J.] sut/OCT11