1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 07.09.2011, passed by the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, in A.T.A. No. 775(5)/2008, whereby the Tribunal has allowed the said appeal filed by the present respondent No.1.
2. The brief facts leading to filing of this appeal are that the present respondent No.1 is an establishment covered under the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. The respondent-establishment failed to deposit the provident fund (PF) and allied dues in respect of its employees. Accordingly, an inquiry was initiated against the respondent-establishment and an amount of Rs.2,99,426/- assessed in respect of the said employees. Against which, the present respondent No.1 preferred an Appeal being Appeal No. ATA 755(5) of 2008 before the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi. The Tribunal after hearing learned advocates for both the parties and after recording the evidence has allowed the said appeal, against which the present petition is filed by the petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Tribunal has committed an error in allowing the appeal filed by the present respondent No.1. He further contended that the the Tribunal has failed to appreciate the material on record in its true perspective.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. I have gone through the order of the Tribunal. The Tribunal while considering the case in paragraph 6 and 7 has observed as under:-
"6.
It is not disputed that the appellant applied for voluntary coverage the order reveal that the assessment was made on the basis of gate pass issued. Such passes are issued not only to the employee but also the visitors. The order does not indicate even the no. of employees who are said to be not enrolled. There was no identification of employees also.
7. The entire order was based on the report of E.O. who assessed the dues on the basis of gate pass. The E.O. report was not supplied to the appellant nor any opportunity was given to the appellant to cross examine the E.O. so there appears to be the breach of principles of natural justice.
5. In view of the above, I am in complete agreement with the view taken by the Tribunal in allowing the appeal. Apart from that learned advocate for the petitioner is not in a position to show anything from the record to take a different view in the matter.
6. In the result, this petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(K.S.
JHAVERI,J.) pawan Top