1 WP 143.2011- (J) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 143 OF 2011 M/s Shri. Gajanan Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Sonaji Nagar, Tq. & Dist. Beed (Maharashtra) Through its Managing Director Jagannath S/o Dhondiram Mamadge Age : 58 Yrs., Occ. Service, R/o : Sonaji Nagar, Rajuri (Navgan), Tq. & Dist. : Beed. .... PETITIONER V E R S U S 1. Union of India Through Ministry of Labour & Employment New Delhi. 2. The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner S.R.O., E.P.F.O., Plot No. 2, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhavan, Town Centre, Aurangabad, Dist. Aurangabad. .... RESPONDENTS ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mr. G.K.Thigle ( Naik ), Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. S.L.Sagar (Killarikar), Standing Council for Resp. No. 1. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL & S.V. GANGAPURWALA, JJ. DATE : 12/01/2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : [ PER – S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for the respective parties, taken up for final hearing. 2 WP 143.2011- (J) 2. The petitioner assails the Order dated 20/9/2010 passed by the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, whereby dismissing the Appeal preferred by the petitioner against the Order passed by the EPF Authority under Section 14-B of the Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 [ For short, ‘ EPF & MP Act ’ ]. 3. Mr. Thigle, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the appellate authority has passed order without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. As the order is passed without hearing the petitioner, liberty deserves to be given to the petitioner to represent his case before the appellate Tribunal. 4. Mr. Sagar (Killarikar), learned counsel for respondent no. 1 submits that no fault can be found in the order passed by the appellate Tribunal in as much as it is the statutory liability of the petitioner to pay the amount of penalty. The appellant was served with the notice and as he was not present, there was no option for the Tribunal but to pass order. 5. With the assistance of the learned counsel, we have gone through the impugned order. 6. It is the fact that the appellant was not heard at the time when the impugned order was passed. The Appeal involves invaluable right of the appellant. Mr. Thigle, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly concedes that the 3 WP 143.2011- (J) stay was initially granted, it could not be continued as he had not deposited the amount. In light of the fact that the petitioner was not heard when the appellate Tribunal passed impugned order, we quash and set aside the impugned order and afford an opportunity to the petitioner to place his case before the appellate Tribunal. 7. In light of the above, the Order dated 20/9/2010 passed by the Employees Provident Fund Authority is quashed and set aside and we relegate the petitioner to the appellate Tribunal and restore the said Appeal to its original position. 8. Rule is made accordingly absolute, however with no order as to costs. 9. It is made clear that we have not opined on the merits of the matter. The appellate Tribunal shall dispose of the Appeal expeditiously on its own merits. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] [ NARESH H. PATIL, J. ] knp/WP 143.2011