IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 10TH JUNE 2011 / 20TH JYAISHTA 1933 WP(C).No. 15633 of 2011(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- THE MALANAD CO-OP. AGRICULTURAL & RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD.NO.K.352, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, NEDUMKANDAM P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.J.JOY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, (MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA), SCOPE MINAR, CORE-II, 4TH FLOOR, LAKSHMI NAGAR, NEW DELHI-110 092. 2. THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND, BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 004. 3. THE ASST. PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, (MINISTRY OF LABOUR, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA), SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, CHALAKUZHY BUILDING, C.M.S.COLLEGE ROAD, P.B.NO.36, KOTTAYAM-686 001. 4. THE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, MUNNAR P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY SMT.T.N.GIRIJA, SC FOR EPF ORGANISATION. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N. RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.15633 OF 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of June, 2011 J U D G M E N T Ext.P9 order passed by the Employees' Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi dismissing Ext.P5 appeal filed by the petitioner from Ext.P2 order passed under Section 7A of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 is under challenge in this writ petition. The main contention set out by the petitioner is that though the date fixed for hearing of the appeal was 7.1.2011, Ext.P6 notice of hearing dated 10.12.2010 was despatched from New Delhi only on 4.1.2011, delivered to the petitioner only on 8.1.2011 and therefore the petitioner could not make arrangements to attend the hearing. The petitioner contends that in such circumstances, the Tribunal erred in dismissing the appeal without affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. 2. In Ext.P9, the order impugned in this writ petition, it is stated that there was no appearance for the appellant and that no argument was advanced by the appellant. It is also stated that the appeal was reserved for orders after hearing the respondent. Ext.P6 notice of hearing dated 10.12.2010 was signed by the Registrar of the Tribunal only on 27.12.2010. Ext.P6(a), photostat copy of the cover in which the notice was despatched to the petitioner and received by W.P.(C) No.15633 of 2011 2 him discloses that it was despatched by post from New Delhi only on 4.1.2011 and received at Nedumkandam only on 8.1.2011. The date fixed for hearing was on 7.1.2011. The materials produced by the petitioner thus prima facie establish that notice of hearing was not served on the petitioner before the date fixed for hearing of the appeal. 3. Smt.T.N.Girija, the learned standing counsel apeparing for the Employees Provident Fund Organisation submitted that in view of the materials now on record, respondents 2 to 4 have no objection to the impugned order being set aside and in directing reconsideration of the appeal on the merits, after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. In the light of the facts stated above and in view of the concession made by the learned standing counsel, I allow the writ petition, set aside Ext.P9 and direct the Employees' Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi to take back ATA.No.958(7)2005 to file , issue notice to the parties giving at least two weeks clear notice of the date fixed for hearing and pass fresh orders thereon, W.P.(C) No.15633 of 2011 3 expeditiously and in any event within 4 months from today. Until such time, the recovery pursuant to Ext.P2 order which was the amount in the aforesaid appeal shall stand stayed. P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. nj.