AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Hon''ble Mr. Satish K. Agnihotri, J.—Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Appellate Tribunal, while passing the impugned order dated 23.8.2010 (Annexure P/ 1) failed to consider several legal grounds raised by the petitioner in the memo of appeal dated 24.6.2004 (Annexure P/16). Shri Vyas further submits that several grounds were raised relying on the decisions of the Supreme Court and were argued also, but the same have been brushed aside by the Appellate Tribunal.
It is an admitted position of both the parties that the grounds raised in the pleadings were also argued before the Tribunal.
Shri Saxena, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 submits that the said grounds were not considered as they were not relevant in the dispute and the same had already been decided.
Be that as it may, even if grounds raised by the petitioners were irrelevant, the same should have been considered and appropriate observation ought to have been made in the order. On perusal of the order, it appears that all the grounds have been brushed aside without adverting to the same.
In view of the above, the impugned order dated 23.8.2010 (Annexure P/I) is quashed. The matter is remitted back to the Appellate Tribunal to consider all the points raised in the memo of appeal and argued by the counsel, a fresh and pass order in accordance with law, on its own merits.
Pursuant to the order dated 13.1.2011, passed by this Court, the petitioner has deposited a sum of Rs. 4 lakhs with the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner. Raipur. In the event, the petitioner succeeds before the Appellate Tribunal, the amount so deposited with the Recovery Officer & Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Raipur, shall be returned back to the petitioner with interest accrued thereon, else, the same shall be governed by the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal.
The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs.