IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No 5409 of 2010 1. M/S RANCHER & CO. THROUGH ITS PARTNER GURUSHARAN SINGH CHAWLA S/O HAR CHARAN SINGH CHAWLA R/O FLAT NO.- 801 B, WHITE HOUSE, BUDH MARG, P.S.- KOTWALI, DISTT.- PATNA Versus 1. THE PRESIDING OFFICER, E.P.F. APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI 2. THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, E.P.F., REGIONAL OFFICE, R- BLOCK, BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, E.P.F. REGIONAL OFFICE, R- BLOCK, BIHAR, PATNA ----------- 2 20.04.2010 Heard the parties and with their consent, this writ application is being disposed of at the stage of admission itself. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 12.11.2009 passed by the Presiding Officer, Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi by which he has refused to condone the delay in filing restoration application in respect of an appeal which was dismissed for default. At the very outset, I would like to observe that the authorities under the Provident Fund Act must realise that they are not tax assessing officers. The contributions for which petitioner and their like are charged are for the benefit of individual identifiable persons and have to enure to their benefits in their accounts. Rarely, this is done. What are done are assessments made, penalties levied and all accounts collected and credited to the account of the Provident Fund but not to the members. This Court says it is not a tax because it has not to augment the general revenue of the State that these amounts are collected. They are to provide benefits to specific individuals who unfortunately remain unidentified and the amounts recovered from petitioner and their like remain in the coffers of the Provident Fund ad infinitum without claim or utilisation. Be that as it may, the petitioner asserts that it had paid its dues in due time and has 2 evidence in support thereof. Notwithstanding that, notices were issued to him for fresh assessment for the same very period. Not only assessments were made, penalties were levied ignoring payments already made. Bank accounts attached and substantial money recovered. Being fed up, petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal being ATA No 557 (3) of 2008. The said appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution. Petitioner filed an application for restoration which has also been dismissed. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court. Petitioner points out that on 23.01.2009, petitioner appeared before the appellate authority at Delhi and the next date of hearing was fixed on 01.06.2009. On 26.05.2009, petitioner received notice intimating the next date of hearing to be 28.05.2009 at Camp Court at Jalpaiguri, West Bengal. This confused the petitioner on two grounds. Firstly, the date was being preponed and at such short notice, petitioner was now to appear at Jalpaiguri instead of New Delhi as earlier he could not reach Jalpaiguri in time and, therefore, on 01.06.2009, he filed an application showing compliance of earlier order at which he had been directed to deposit 25% and he was then told that his case had already been dismissed for non- prosecution on 28.05.2009. He thereafter filed, on the same day, restoration application at New Delhi which again seems to be misplaced and after further enquiries on being told so, he filed another application which has now been dismissed as barred by limitation and the Appellate Tribunal refuses to condone delay. All I can say is that though justice delayed is justice denied, at the same time, justice hurried is justice buried. The Appellate Tribunal or for that matter the cause of justice 3 would not have suffered and hell would not have broken down if the delay was condoned and the matter heard on merits and decided on merits. In that view of the matter, I have no option but to set aside the impugned order of the Appellate Tribunal as was done by the Delhi High Court under identical situation, the dates even being the same in respect of another person from Bihar. The Tribunal is, accordingly, directed to hear the appeal of the petitioner on merits and dispose of the same by a speaking order afresh. I direct the petitioner to appear before the Appellate Tribunal with the copy of order of this Court before it at New Delhi within four weeks and on his appearance, the Appellate Tribunal would fix a date and the venue in his presence for further hearing on merits. The writ application is, thus, allowed. M.E.H./ (Navaniti Prasad Singh)