A^ 3 BEFORE^ E^O]SF'B^HI<M3<^HRTOFCHHAT^S6^^ EHsASFUR ': ;:' :• ' :' :'.; '• '" ;:: • . '; .• WRIT PETITION ( L 1 N0.3")^ OF 2010 '.:-^"1 PETI1-IONES RESRONDENtS .^/^^)y f//f.[ ^ •J' ;;.: ,6'' S • '' I. 2. M/s. BSBK Rrivate Limited TMrougH its Manager BSBKHouse Nandani Road Bhilai(C.G) VERSUS Employees Provident Fund, ARpellate Tribuna^ New Delhi, Scope Minar, Core-II, 4th Flobr, Laxmi NagSr, Distriet Gentre, Laxmii Nagar, New Deltiitl0692, Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Office of Ernployees Provident Fuhd QrganizatiQn, Regiohal Office, Indira Gandhi VyawasaiR Parisar, Pandri, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) WRIfPETITIONUNDERARTICLE2^60FT'HECX)lteT^ OF INDIA POR tSSUftNGE SOF^^^^^^ W^ GERTIORARI OR DIRE<STIE@N €>FI.iSEE IISli&TUftE. '^•'i: i"i: :r Y.- ••^t';:^ •^•t~: .iw DM (Bl l.fill n aa Slffl i:IM iii 9Si •i'l HEIE ii|ii;[ HIGH COURT OF CHHATnSGARH AT BILASPUR WRTT PETmONfL) No. 5753 of2010 , PETmONER : M/s. BSBK Private Limited. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : Employees Provident Fund, ^peUate Tribunal, , New Delhi &Another. • WRIT PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTTTUnON OF INDIA SB: Hun'hte ShriSatish K. AsnlhDtri,J. Present: ShriN.K.Vyas, Advocateforthepetitioner. Shri Pradeq) Saxena, Advocate forfhe respaideritNo. 2, ORDERfORAU (Passed on 22"' day of Febniary, 2QI1) Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits Ifaat. the /^)pellate Tribunal, wMIe passing the impugied order dated 23.08.2010 (Aimexure P/l) failed to consider several legal grounds raised by the petitioner in the memo of appeal dated 24.06.2004 (Amiexure P/16). Shri Vyas &rther submits Aat several grounds were raised relying on fhe decisions oflfae Supreme Gourt and were argued also, but the same have been brushed aside by the Appellate Tribunal. It is an aAmtted position ofboth tte parties Ifaat the grounds raised in the pleadings were alsoargued before the Tribunal. Shri Saxena, leamed counsel appearing for the respondentNo. 2 submits that the said g'ounds were not considered as they were not relevant in the dispute and fhe same hadalready been deeided. Be fhat as it may, even if grounds raised by the petitioneis were irrelevant, fhe same should have been considered and appropnate observation oug^t to have been made in the order. Gta perusal of Ifae order, it appears tfaat all the grounds have been brushed aside without adverting to Ifae same. 5. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 23.08.2010 (Annexure P/l) is quashed. The matter is remitted baek to the Appellate Tjibimal to consider all the points raised in tiiememo of appeal and argued by the counsel, a fi-esh aad pass order in accordance with law, on its own merits. 6. Pursuant to the order dated 13.01.2011, passed by this Coiut, the petitioner has deposited a sum of Rs. 4 lacs with fhe Regional Provident Fuad Comnussioner, Raipur. In the eyeut,the petitioner succeeds before the Appellate Tribunal, the amouat so deposited with the Recovery Officer & Regional Provideat Fund Commissioner, Raipur, shall be retumed back to the petitioner vrith interest accmed thereon, else, the same shaU be govemed by the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal. 7. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indieated above. No order astocosts. ., Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge