REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER vs GOVIND NATH SHUKLA

This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 21.03.2012 passed by the U.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow (in short, ''the State Commission'') in Appeal No. 1339/2010 - Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Vs. Govind Nath Shukla by which, appeal was dismissed in default.

Brief facts of the case are that complainant/respondent filed complaint before District Forum against OP/petitioner and learned District forum vide order dated 15.4.2010 allowed complaint

and directed OP to ensure payment of pension to the complainant and further awarded Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.2000/- as cost of litigation. Appeal filed by OP was dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed along with application for condonation of delay.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties finally at admission stage and perused record.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that as certified copy was obtained by petitioner on 5.12.2014 and free copy was not received by petitioner before this copy, delay of 920 days may be condoned. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that as there is inordinate delay of 920 days without any explanation, application for condonation of delay may be dismissed.

No doubt, as per office report, there is delay of 917 days in filing revision, but admittedly appeal was dismissed in default and as per averment in the application for condonation of delay, petitioner has not received free copy of the impugned order except the certified copy on 5.12.2014. It is true that petitioner should have been vigilant and failed to enquire about pendency of appeal for more than 2 1/2 years, but as appeal has been dismissed in default and petitioner received certified copy on 5.12.2014, I deem it appropriate to condone delay subject to cost. Consequently, application for condonation of delay is allowed and delay stands condoned subject to payment of Rs.2,000/- to respondent.

As appeal has been dismissed in default on the basis of uploading cause list on website, impugned order is liable to set aside because uploading of cause list on website is not sufficient for intimation to the appellant and learned State Commission should have dismissed appeal only after proper service of notice on the appellant for appearance before the learned State Commission. As appeal has been dismissed in default without proper notice, I deem it appropriate to set aside impugned order and restore appeal.

Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and impugned order dated 21.03.2012 passed by the learned State Commission in Appeal No. 1339/2010 - Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Vs. Govind Nath Shukla is set aside subject to payment of cost as observed above within four weeks and appeal is restored at its original number. Learned State Commission is directed to proceed in accordance with law.

Parties are directed to appear before learned State Commission on 2.5.2016.