1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 5960/2011 (MAHESH INDUSTRIES, KHAMGAON, BULDANA VERSUS THE ASSTT. PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER & ANOTHER) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri A.J. Pathak, counsel for the petitioner. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : DECEMBER 5 , 2011 . By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order passed by the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal on 09.04.2011, rejecting an appeal filed by the petitioner against an order passed by the Provident Fund Authorities under Section 7-A of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. It is the case of the petitioner that the Tribunal has not considered the contentions of the petitioner in the written notes of arguments filed by the petitioner. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Provident Fund Authority could not have passed the order under Section 7-A of the Act without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that the summons issued by the Provident Fund Authority under Section 7-A of the Act was never served on the petitioner. On hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and on perusal of the order under Section 7-A, the appeal memo filed by the petitioner before the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal and the impugned order passed by the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal on 2 09.04.2011, it appears that the authorities were justified in passing the impugned orders. It appears that the summons under Section 7-A of the Act were duly served on the petitioner as it is mentioned so in the order passed under Section 7-A of the Act. In case, the petitioner was not served with the summons, the partner of the petitioner could not have remained present for final hearing on 03.07.2007. In the appeal memo, the petitioner has not made a statement as to how it became aware of Section 7-A proceedings when it was not served with the summons. It is merely stated in the appeal memo that the petitioner was not served with the summons but, this submission appears to be incredible in view of the appearance of the partner of the petitioner in the proceedings under Section 7-A of the Act on 03.07.2007. It appears that the petitioner was absent when the matter was heard by the Tribunal. It further appears from the impugned order passed by the Tribunal on 09.04.2011 that though the petitioner and its counsel was absent, the Tribunal rightly considered the ground raised by the petitioner that since it had purchased the establishment in the year 2005, it was not liable to pay for the default committed by the previous owner. The Tribunal considered the provisions of Section 17-B of the Act to hold that the petitioner was jointly liable. The Tribunal observed that it was clear from the impugned order under Section 7-A of the Act that in spite of service of notice and repeated adjournments, the petitioner failed to cooperate with the Provident Fund Authorities and appeared when the matter was fixed for final hearing. There is no error, much less, a jurisdictional error in the orders passed by the authorities. 3 In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE