IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.21230 of 2011 Date of Decision : November 16, 2011. M/s Bihari Lal Rattan Chand Printing Mills .....Petitioner versus Employees' Provident Fund Department, Amritsar and ors .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Vivek Salathia, Advocate, for the petitioner. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) The petitioner-firm was subjected to damages by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Amritsar, vide an order dated 29.08.2002 (Annexure P-3) imposing the damages of Rs.3,70,120/-. The petitioner-firm statedly filed an appeal bearing No.A.T.A. No.255(11)2006 against the above stated order alongwith an application for condonation of delay. It is stated that the delay was condoned subject to deposit of a part of the damages and the same was complied with by the petitioner-firm. The aforesaid appeal was dismissed in default on 1.10.2010 due to non-appearance of the counsel for the petitioner who had unfortunately passed away. The petitioner-firm has thereafter moved an CWP No.21230 of 2011 [2] application (Annexure P-7) for restoration of the above-stated appeal which has not been taken up for hearing as the Union of India is yet to appoint the Presiding Officer of the Appellate Tribunal at New Delhi. Meanwhile, the order dated 29.8.2002 is sought to be executed through coercive means, prompting the petitioner to approach this Court. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and considering the above mentioned facts, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi to take up and dispose of the petitioner's application for restoration of its appeal, as early as possible and preferably within a period of three months from the date of appointment of the Presiding Officer. Till then and subject to the petitioner's compliance of the conditions imposed by the Appellate Tribunal while condoning delay in filing the appeal, it is directed that no coercive step shall be taken for recovery of the amount from the petitioner-firm. Ordered accordingly. Dasti. November 16, 2011 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE