1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 11.11.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.N.BASHA AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL Writ Appeal (MD)No.1204 of 2011 Sri Naga Nanthana Mills Ltd., Vakkanankundu Post, Aruppukottai Taluk, Virudhunagar District, Through its Director ... Appellant/ Petitioner Vs. 1.The Presiding Officer, Employment Provident Appellate Tribunal, Scope Minor, Core-II, 4th Floor, Lakshmi Nagar, New Delhi-110 092. 2.The Regional Provident fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organization, Regional Office, Lady Doak College Road, Chokkikulam, Madurai. 3.The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organization, Regional Office, Madurai-2. ... Respondents/ Respondents Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of Letters Patent against the order of the learned Single Judge, dated 14.09.2011, made in W.P.(MD)No.9496 of 2010 to Call for the records from the file of the 1st respondent herein in ATA 232(13) 2004 and to quash the order dated 18.3.2010 passed therein. For Appellant : Mr.P.Chandra Bose For Respondents : Mr.G.R.Swaminathan JUDGMENT [Judgment of the Court was delivered BY K.N.BASHA, J] The appellant has come forward with this writ appeal challenging the order of the writ court, dated 14.09.2011, made in W.P.(MD)No.9496 of 2010. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 2.Mr.G.R.Swaminathan, learned Standing Counsel for EPF Organization, takes notice for the respondents. By mutual consent of the learned counsel on either side, the main writ appeal itself is taken up for final hearing at the time of admission itself. 3.Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the writ petition filed by the appellant was allowed and the matter was remitted back to the authorities. But, the writ court has observed that the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner is to re-determine the damages, which goes to the crux of the matter and the issue involved and as such it may cause serious prejudice to the appellant. Therefore, the appellant is aggrieved only in respect of certain words in the order of the writ court in the penultimate paragraph to the effect of directing the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner to re-determine the damages. 4.Heard Mr.G.R.Swaminathan, learned counsel, who has taken notice for the respondents. He would contend that there is no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the writ Court and the writ court, while observing that the impugned order was a non-speaking order, has rightly remitted the matter to the authorities for re-determination of the damages. 5.We have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides and perused the materials available on record, including the order of the writ court, dated 14.09.2011. 6.The fact remains that the appellant has succeeded before the writ court as his writ petition was allowed by the order of the writ court, dated 14.09.2011. The only grievance of the appellant is to the effect that instead of remanding the matter for fresh consideration, the writ court has observed to the effect that the Assistant Provident Commissioner is to redetermine the damages. We are of the considered view that such an observation would cause serious prejudice to the appellant, as he is entitled to put-forward his contentions in respect of the merits of the matter. Therefore, we are inclined to modify the said portion of the writ court order to the effect that the matter is remitted back to the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner to consider the matter afresh, by affording an opportunity to the appellant to put-forward his contentions regarding merits and other factual and legal points. In all other aspects, the order of the writ court will remain unaltered. 7.With the above modification, the writ appeal stands disposed of. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar /True Copy/ Sub-Assistant Registrar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 To: 1.The Presiding Officer, Employment Provident Appellate Tribunal, Scope Minor, Core-II, 4th Floor, Lakshmi Nagar, New Delhi-110 092. 2.The Regional Provident fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organization, Regional Office, Lady Doak College Road, Chokkikulam, Madurai. 3.The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organization, Regional Office, Madurai-2. Gb rl/4 c- 28.11.2011 Judgment IN W.A.(MD)No.1204/2011 Dated:11.11.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/