BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated: 07/09/2011
Coram
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA
W.P.(MD)No.12861 of 2010
and
M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2010
M/s. Sibaflor Natural Decorations Pvt., Ltd.,
(Formerly known as M/s. W. Hogewoning
Dried Flowers Industries Pvt., Ltd.,)
2/101-2/108, Ettayapuram Road,
A.Kumarapuram, Melamaruthur,
Kurukkuchalai, Tuticorin - 628 722,
Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Director. ...... Petitioner
Vs
1. The Employees' Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal,
Scope Minar, Core-II,
4th Floor, Laxmi Nagar District Centre,
Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi - 110 092.
2. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner,
Employees' Provident Fund Organisation,
Sub Regional Office,
Bhavishya Nidhi Bhavan,
NGO "B" Colony,
Tirunelveli - 627 007. ....... Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the
records on the file of the first respondent herein dated 15.09.2010 made in
A.T.A.No.270(13) of 2009 and quash the same and consequently direct the first
respondent Tribunal to restore the restoration application filed by the
petitioner and decide the same on merits and in accordance with law.
!For Petitioner ... Mr. M. Elanchezhian
^For Respondents... Mr. K. Murali Sankar
- - - - - --
:ORDER
The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court,
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ, in the
nature of Certiorari, to quash the order dated 15.09.2010, passed by the
Employees’ Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi.
2. The impugned order reads as under:-
“The record reveals that the matter was listed today for hearing on
restoration of restoration application. However, there is no provision of
restore the restoration application. Since there is not provision to restore a
restoration application the same stands rejected. Copy of the order be sent to
the parties and the file be consigned to record room”.
3. The impugned order cannot be sustained, as the application moved
by the petitioner has not decided on merit, but has been dismissed, for want of
jurisdiction. It is well settled law, that under inherent jurisdiction, Court
can always restore an application filed, for restoration of the Appeal, which
was dismissed for default.
4. The impugned order therefore is set aside, and the application
filed for restoration of application for restoration of Appeal is allowed. The
learned Tribunal is directed to decide the application for restoration of
Appeal, on merits, and in accordance with law.
5. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before
the Employees’ Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi on 03.11.2011
(Monday).
No costs.
The Connected M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011 is closed.
Dpn/-