1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.3633 OF 2010. Asstt.Provident Fund Commissioner ..vs.. M/s Chattisgarh Urban Credit Sahakarti Sanstha Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Dr.R.S.Sundaram, Adv. for the petitioner. Mr.S.N.Bhattad Adv. for the respondent. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : 6th DECEMBER, 2010. Heard Mr.Sundaram, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Bhattad, learned counsel for the respondent. Counter affidavit filed by Advocate Mr.Sundaram is taken on record. After hearing respective counsel, I am satisfied that the Presiding Officer, E.P.F. Appellate Tribunal (E.P.F.A.T.), New Delhi has passed order dated 8/9/2010 without extending any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Fact that the standing counsel was present before E.P.F.A.T. does not mean an extension of opportunity of hearing. Said standing counsel must be armed with relevant instructions and data to oppose the prayers. Grievance made by the petitioner, therefore, is justified. 2 The petitioner can inform the said standing counsel not to represent it on first date of appearance. It can also bring this request to knowledge of Presiding Officer, E.P.F.A.T. Advocate Mr.Bhattad, learned counsel for the respondent, however, tried to show that as the appeal is now fixed for final hearing, the present petition may be disposed of and appeal should be expedited. The argument cannot be accepted. In appropriate case E.P.F.A.T. could have passed an ex parte interim order in this respect and then could have heard the petitioner and pass further appropriate order in the matter. Ex parte waiving of deposit without having full facts before it constitutes the denial of opportunity to the petitioner. The impugned order is, therefore, quashed and set aside. E.P.F.A.T. is directed to hear the petitioner and respondent on application under Section 7(O) of the E.P.F. And M.I.P.Act, 1952 and pass fresh order in accordance with law. The petitioner and the respondent to appear before the E.P.F.A.T. on 12/01/2011 and to abide by its further instructions in the matter. Rule is made absolute accordingly. No order as to costs. JUDGE chute