JUDGMENT : Savant R.M., J. 1. Rule, with the consent of the parties, made returnable forthwith and heard. The above petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order dated 18.2.2011 passed by the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, by which order the appeal filed by the petitioner came to be dismissed and resultantly the order passed u/s 7-A and 14-B of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 came to be confirmed. 2. Shorn of unnecessary details, a few facts can be stated thus - The petitioner was held to be accessible by virtue of the order dated 17.8.200 passed u/s 7-A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. By the said order, the petitioner was also asked to make a remittances for the period 1.3.1998 to 31.7.2000. The petitioner also received the show cause notice to show cause as to why damages and penal interest under sections 14B and 7-Q of the said Act should not be imposed. It is the case of the petitioner that without affording any opportunity an order came to be passed against the petitioner on 11.12.2003 imposing penalty and damages. It is against the aforesaid orders that the petitioner filed an Appeal which was numbered as ATA No. 103/9/2007 before the Tribunal. The petitioner deposited 25% of the amount in terms of the order passed by the Apex Court in the SLP filed by the petitioner against the direction issued by this Court for deposit of 50% of the amount. 3. In so far as the Appeal is concerned, the petitioner came to be intimated vide notice issued by the respondent No. 2 that the appeal would be taken up for hearing on 17.2.2011. The petitioner was represented by its Counsel Shri S.S. Ghate, who was also appearing for some other Appellant Companies before the Tribunal on the said date. It appears that on the said day i.e. 17.2.2011 since the file of the Tribunal relating to the petitioner was not traceable, the matter was adjourned to 18.2.2011. On 18.2.2011, the matter was not on daily board and therefore the petitioner's Counsel made a mention to the learned Registrar of the Tribunal, who informed the petitioner's Counsel that the file is not traceable. On 18.2.2011, the matter was not on daily board and therefore the petitioner's Counsel made a mention to the learned Registrar of the Tribunal, who informed the petitioner's Counsel that the file is not traceable. Since some other Appeal of the petitioner's Counsel was adjourned to 25.3.2011, the appeal filed by the petitioner was also adjourned to 25.3.2011. Accordingly, on the daily board the matter was shown to have been adjourned to 25.3.2011. The petitioner thereafter was shocked and surprised to receive an order dated 18.2.2011 of the Tribunal wherein the absence of the petitioner's Counsel has been noted and the appeal has been resultantly decided in the absence of the Counsel by the impugned judgment and order of the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal dated 18.2.2011. 4. It would be apposite to reproduce the averments made in paragraph 15 of the above petition. 15. That accordingly on 17.2.2011 the petitioner along with its Counsel was present in the matter. It is most respectfully submitted that on 17.2.2011, the petitioner appeared in the matter and it was found that the file of the Tribunal was not traced, therefore, the matter was adjourned to next day i.e. on 18.2.2011. On 18.2.2011, the petitioner was present along with its counsel, however, matter was not finding place on the daily board. The Counsel for the petitioner appeared in other matters as listed on board. It is respectfully submitted that after the regular board was over the Counsel for petitioner has mentioned about hearing of the present appeal as it was adjourned from 17.2.2011 to 18.2.2011. The Hon'ble Presiding Officer was pleased to direct the learned Registrar to call out the matter for final hearing, to which the Registrar of the learned respondent No. 2 has specifically stated that the file is not traceable, therefore, it is not available. Therefore, since other matters of the Counsel for petitioner were already adjourned to 25.3.2011, therefore, the present appeal was also adjourned to 25.3.2011, therefore, the present appeal was adjourned to 25.3.2011. Accordingly, the matter was taken on board and it was shown to have been adjourned to 25.3.2011 on the cause list maintained by the Registrar of the respondent No. 2. Therefore, the petitioner and its Counsel has noted the date of 25.3.2011 and left the camp premises where the hearing of the Tribunal was held. 5. Accordingly, the matter was taken on board and it was shown to have been adjourned to 25.3.2011 on the cause list maintained by the Registrar of the respondent No. 2. Therefore, the petitioner and its Counsel has noted the date of 25.3.2011 and left the camp premises where the hearing of the Tribunal was held. 5. In reply filed by the respondent No. 1 thereto, it is stated thus - 4. The contention of the petitioner that the Appellate Authority did not afford opportunity of hearing even though it is factual but does not warrant any consideration of this Court. It is submitted that the Tribunal had its scheduled sitting at Nagpur on 16th, 17th and 18th February, 2011. The parties were noticed about the circuit sitting. Circuit sitting of the respondent No. 2 was held for the convenience of the parties and the respective counsels which they were requesting at all times. Hence, as per scheduled sitting the cases to be listed were duly notified. The petitioner had a very well notice of this fact that his matter is listed for final hearing on 17th February, 2011. That even the daily board of the Tribunal clearly demonstrates that the case was listed for final hearing on 17.2.2011. It is an incorrect statement made by the petitioner that the case file of the Tribunal was not available on the date of hearing i.e. 17.2.2011. The petitioner along with the Counsel for some reason or the other which is best known to them, chose to remain absent. It shall not be out of place to submit that appearing Counsel before the Tribunal for the petitioner was well available in the other matters before the Tribunal. The petitioner was not present before the Tribunal on 17.2.2011. Thus, considering the overall conduct of the petitioner, the Tribunal rightly chose to proceed under Rule 15 of the EPF Tribunal Procedure Rules which empowers it to decide the merits on merit considering the facts of the case. Thus the Tribunal rightly proceeded under Rule 15 and it considered the merits of the case and passed order which is duly reasoned order. Hence, the contention put forth by the petitioner vide paragraph No. 15 of the writ petition stands denied completely, and warrants no consideration, in view of the submissions made above. Thus the Tribunal rightly proceeded under Rule 15 and it considered the merits of the case and passed order which is duly reasoned order. Hence, the contention put forth by the petitioner vide paragraph No. 15 of the writ petition stands denied completely, and warrants no consideration, in view of the submissions made above. It is submitted the petitioner having committed defaults in payment of P.F. Contribution is interested in litigation that too on a flimsy grounds of financial hardships is not depositing the amount as is apparent from the averments made in the petition. This fact if also considered, shall demonstrate the conduct of the petitioner in the petition to protract the litigation. Hence, so called absence of the petitioner on 17.2.2011 when the Tribunal took up the matter is not on account of genuine and bona fide reasons rather than it is an act of protracting the litigation which has been rightly inferred by the Tribunal and accordingly proceeded under Rule 15 of the EPF procedure rules. Therefore, as can be seen from the reply filed on behalf of the respondent No. 1, the denial that the petitioner has not been granted an opportunity is not made with any deal of conviction. 6. The impugned order passed by the Tribunal has been principally challenged by the petitioner on the ground that the same has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, as no opportunity was granted to the petitioner to prosecute the said appeal as the petitioner's Counsel could not remain present in view of the fact that an impression was given that the said appeal was adjourned to 25.3.2011. It is pertinent to note that the learned Counsel Shri S.S. Ghate who was appearing for the petitioner in the Tribunal has also filed his personal affidavit stating that the appeal was adjourned to 25.3.2011. In my view, it would be just and proper, in the facts and circumstances as indicated above, to set aside the impugned order passed by the Tribunal and relegate the appeal back to the Tribunal for a de novo consideration by affording an opportunity to the petitioner. Hence, the following directions. (i) The impugned order dated 18.2.2011 passed by the Employees' Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal is hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is relegated back to the Tribunal for a de novo consideration. Hence, the following directions. (i) The impugned order dated 18.2.2011 passed by the Employees' Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal is hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is relegated back to the Tribunal for a de novo consideration. (ii) The petitioner to appear before the Tribunal on 8.8.2011 and the Tribunal thereafter to decide the appeal within two months of the said date. (iii) The Tribunal to take into consideration the material that would be placed by the petitioner and pass a reasoned order and record findings in respect of the contentions that would be raised before it by the petitioner. Rule is accordingly made absolute in the aforesaid terms with parties to bear their own costs.