1 RA 87.2010 in WP 2771.2006 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD REVIEW APPLICATION NO. 87 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 2771 OF 2006 Office Notes,Office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Mr. V.D.Hon, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. K.B.Choudhari, Advocate for Resp. Nos. 1 & 2. ..................................... CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 19/10/2011 PER COURT : 1. The present petitioner had filed Writ Petition in this Court challenging the order passed by the respondent U/s 14-B of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1951. The petitioner had also filed Appeal. This Court vide its Order dated 21/01/2008 disposed of the Writ Petition directing the petitioner to prosecute the Appeal. Initially, this Court had directed the petitioner to deposit 50 % of the amount and for remaining 50 %, an undertaking was directed to be given. It is not disputed that the petitioner has complied 2 RA 87.2010 in WP 2771.2006 with the said order. But, before this Court passed order dated 21/01/2008, the Appeal was already dismissed on 15/11/2007. As such, the petitioners have filed the present application seeking review and set aside the order passed by the appellate Tribunal dated 15/11/2007. 2. Mr. K.B.Choudahri, the learned counsel for the respondents opposes the request and submits that the petitioner on his own volition remained absent. As the petitioner remained absent, there was no alternative for the Tribunal to dismiss the Writ Petition. Though this fact was not brought to the notice of this Court by both the parties, still as the appellate Tribunal has dismissed the Appeal, nothing survives in the review petition also. 3. This Court had directed the petitioner to deposit 50 % of the amount and also to file an undertaking for the remaining 50 % amount. The petitioner has complied the said order. This Court while disposing of the Writ Petition was given to understand that the Appeal filed before the appellate Tribunal is pending. It appears that as the petitioner’s counsel did not remain present, the Tribunal dismissed the Appeal. 4. In view of the fact that the petitioner has already deposited 50 % of the amount, the petitioner deserves to be 3 RA 87.2010 in WP 2771.2006 given an opportunity to contest the Appeal on merits. The petitioner has shown his bonafides by complying the order passed by this Court. It appears that the petitioner has deposited the amount. The respondent had also moved for withdrawal of the said amount. In view of this, the order dated 15/11/2007 passed by the appellate Tribunal dismissing the Appeal ATA No. 191 (9)/2006 is quashed and set aside. The parties are relegated before the appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal shall decide the said Appeal afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to all the parties. 5. The Review Application is accordingly allowed. No costs. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA,J. ] KNP/WP RA 87.2010 in WP 2771.2006