AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.P. Lavande, J.—Heard Mrs. A. Agni, learned Advocate for the Petitioner and Mr. C.A. Ferreira, learned Assistant Solicitor General for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
Rule. By consent heard forthwith.
By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner challenges the order dated 15th October, 2010 passed by the Employees'' Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, in ATA No. 384 (9) 2002 by which appeal preferred by the Petitioner herein against an order passed u/s 7A of the Employees'' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 has been dismissed.
Indisputably, the Petitioner had filed Writ Petition No. 372/1995 challenging the order dated 31st May, 1995 passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, whereby application filed by the Petitioner claiming infancy exemption u/s 16(1)(d) of the Employees'' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 ("The Act" for short) was rejected. The Division Bench of this Court set aside the order dated 31st May, 1995 by judgment and order dated 21st July, 1999 passed in Writ Petition No. 372/1995 and directed Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Panaji to have fresh look into the matter and to consider the several factors which were required to be considered while deciding the application filed by the Petitioner. The factors required to be considered have been mentioned in paragraph 2 of the judgment of the Division Bench.
Thereafter Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner disposed of the application filed by the Petitioner by order dated 10th January, 2002 against which the Petitioner preferred appeal to Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi. The Tribunal by impugned order dated 15th October, 2010 has dismissed the appeal.
Mrs. Agni, learned Advocate for the Petitioner submits that neither Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner nor the appellate Authority has considered several factors which were directed to be taken into consideration while deciding the application filed by the Petitioner and on this count alone orders passed by both the Authorities are liable to be set aside.
Mr. Ferreira, learned Assistance Solicitor General fairly concedes that both the Authorities have not considered the factors which were required to be considered in terms of the judgment of the Division Bench in Writ Petition No. 372/1995. However, Mr. Ferreira, submits that it would be just and proper to remand the matter to Appellate Authority and not to the Provident Fund Commissioner since the Petitioner had already filed an appeal which has been dismissed.
I find that the submission made by Mrs. Agni and concession made by Mr. Ferreira deserves to be accepted. Perusal of both the orders discloses that both the Authorities have not considered the factors which were required to be considered by them in terms of the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 372/1995. On this sole ground, the order passed by Appellate Tribunal is liable to be quashed and set aside and is hereby quashed and set aside. The Appellate Authority to decide the appeal afresh after considering the factors which were directed to be considered in Writ Petition No. 372/1995. The Appellate Authority shall dispose of the appeal expeditiously and in any case on or before 30.4.2012.
Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.