Regional Provident Fund … vs M/S V. Tex on 5 March, 2009

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                       AT CHANDIGARH


                                             C.W.P. No. 13483 of 2008.
                                         Date of Decision : March 05, 2009.


Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, S.C.O. No. 5-8,
Sector-12, Urban Estate, Karnal.                               .... Petitioner.


                                  Versus.


M/s V. Tex, 335, Industrial Area, Panchkula, and another.     ... Respondents.

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH.

Present:-    Mr. Kamal Sehgal, Advocate,
             for the petitioner.

             Mr. V.G. Dogra, Advocate,
             for the respondent No. 1.


AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL).

Counsel for the petitioner contends that while deciding the

appeal, the learned appellate Tribunal has set aside the order of the assessing

authority under Section 7-A of the Employees’ Provident Funds and

Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, on the ground that the principles of

natural justice have not been complied with. He contends that an

opportunity, therefore, should have been given to the assessing authority to

re-consider the matter after giving appropriate opportunity to the aggrieved

parties who were in appeal before the appellate Tribunal. This contention of

counsel for the petitioner deserves to be accepted.
C.W.P.No. 13483 of 2008. -2-

Counsel for the respondent No. 1 states that the respondents be

given full opportunity to put forth their case before the appropriate authority

including the supportive evidence which they want to produce before the

assessing authority.

Counsel for the petitioner has no objection to this contention of

counsel for the respondent No. 1.

This writ petition is allowed, order of the appellate Tribunal is

modified to the extent that the case shall stand remanded to the appropriate

authority for reconsideration and after giving the respondents full

opportunity in accordance with law as per the assertion of counsel for the

respondent No. 1 which has been accepted by counsel for the petitioner, pass

fresh order under the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous

Provisions Act, 1952, considering all the pleas and any other supportive

document which is produced by the respondents.

(AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH)
JUDGE

March 05, 2009.

sjks.