JUDGMENT : 1. M/s Modern Lock Manufacturing Company, Aligarh through its partner Umesh Kumar is before Court assailing the order dated 21.2.2017 passed by the first respondent i.e. Employees' Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi. 2. Record in question reflects that the petitioner firm is engaged in the trading of locks manufactured by the third parties. For this purpose, it had engaged 14 workers. The provisions of Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (in short "the Act") are not applicable to it. On 20.3.2012 the Labour Enforcement Officer, Aligarh had inspected the petitioner firm and found that 14 workers were employed in the petitioner firm. On 16.5.2011 Engineering Karamchari Sangh, Aligarh had made certain complaint to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Kanpur alleging that the firm was violating the provisions of the Act. Consequently, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Kanpur had directed the second petitioner i.e. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Agra to enquire about the correctness of such complaint but till date the second respondent has not submitted any report to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner. 3. On 27.9.2012, one Ravinder Singh, EPF Inspector visited the petitioner firm and submitted a report to the second respondent. On the basis of the said report the second respondent had proceeded to issue a notice on 15.10.2012 mentioning therein that 23 workers were employed in the petitioner firm and as such the firm is under legal obligation to ensure compliance of the Act. On the basis of certain ex-parte proceedings, on 15.10.2012 the second respondent had issued Certificate No.EPF/SRO/Agra/ENF/UP/54959 to the petitioner firm. In response to the said notice the petitioner had responded to the second respondent with categorical stand that at the relevant point of time there were only 14 workers employed in the firm, as such the provisions contained under the Act are not applicable. The proceedings were finalised way back on 18.10.2013 by the second respondent and the said finalisation was exparte against the petitioner firm. The petitioner firm filed restoration application/objection on 26.11.2013 and again filed the application on 27.3.2014 for recalling the order dated 18.10.2013. The said action has been assailed by the petitioner in Writ Petition No.29102 of 2014 (M/s Modern Lock Manufacturing Co. & Anr. v. Asstt. Commissioner, E.P.F. & Anr.), which was disposed of on 1.9.2014. 4. The petitioner firm filed restoration application/objection on 26.11.2013 and again filed the application on 27.3.2014 for recalling the order dated 18.10.2013. The said action has been assailed by the petitioner in Writ Petition No.29102 of 2014 (M/s Modern Lock Manufacturing Co. & Anr. v. Asstt. Commissioner, E.P.F. & Anr.), which was disposed of on 1.9.2014. 4. On 20.9.2014 the Labour Enforcement Officer, Aligarh again inspected the business premises of the petitioner and found that the petitioner firm had employed 14 workers. Thereafter the second petitioner issued several notices to the petitioner but on each date the case was adjourned. On 22.6.2016 the Labour Enforcement Officer visited the business premises of the petitioner and found that 14 workers are employed in the petitioner firm. In response to the directives so issued by this Court, the second respondent had finalised the proceedings under Section 7-A of the Act on 26.7.2016 and passed an order that the petitioner firm is rightly covered under the Act and had directed the department to proceed for assessment of dues accordingly. The petitioner firm had proceeded to file restoration/ review application and prayed for recalling the ex-parte order. The said application was rejected by the second respondent on 27.10.2016. The petitioner had preferred Writ C No.58955 of 2016 for following reliefs:- "(i) issue writ of certiorari calling for record of the case, quashing the impugned orders dated 15.10.2012, 18.10.2013, 26.7.2016 and 27.10.2016 passed by respondent no.1 (Annexure Nos.4, 10, 20 and 22 respectively); (ii) issue writ, order or direction in the nature of declaration that the provisions of Employees Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 are not applicable to the petitioner firm as there are 14 workers only in its employment and direct the respondent no.1 and his subordinates not to enforce ex parte orders dated 15.10.2012, 18.10.2013, 26.7.2016 and 27.10.2016 against the petitioner firm; (iii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of ad interim mandamus staying the effect and operation of the impugned ex parte orders dated 15.10.2012, 18.10.2013, 26.7.2016 and 27.10.2016 passed by respondent no.1 (Annexure Nos.4, 10, 20 and 22 respectively) and all proceedings consequent thereof." 5. Finally the said writ petition was disposed of on 6.1.2017 asking the petitioner to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority alongwith interim injunction application within two weeks and the Appellate Authority was directed to decide the injunction application within next two weeks and for a period of four weeks, no coercive action was directed to be taken against the petitioner firm. The petitioner has filed the appeal alongwith injunction application before the Appellate Authority after the time stipulated by this Court and the petitioner has mentioned the reasons for delay in filing the appeal in paras 37, 38 and 39 of the writ petition. Paras 37, 38 and 39 of the writ petitions are reproduced herein below:- "37. That subsequent to the said order of this Hon'ble Court on 9.1.2017 petitioners engaged Sri Pulkit Manuja, Advocate 320, C.K. Dabhtary Block, Supreme Court of India, New Delhi to prepare and file an appeal on behalf of petitioners before the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi as directed by the Hon'ble High Court in its order dated 6.1.2017 passed in Writ Petition No.58955 of 2016. 38. That on 18.1.2017 Shri Pulkit Manuja counsel for the appellants informed the petitioners that he had filed the appeal before the EPF Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi and result thereof would be communicated to him. 39. That on 21.2.2017 counsel for the appellant informed the petitioners that inadvertently there had been 25 days delay in filing the said appeal before the respondent yet, on account of his personal problems and further that despite his best possible efforts respondent no.1 has not condoned delay in filing of the appeal and has dismissed the appeal being barred by limitation." 6. Shri B.B. Paul, learned counsel for the petitioner very fairly submits that the petitioner firm engaged Shri Pulkit Manuja, Advocate, Supreme Court of India to file the appeal in question before the Appellate Authority and Shri Pulkit Manuja, Advocate himself has acknowledged that on account of his personal problems and despite his best efforts, the appeal in question could not be filed within stipulated time and some delay has been caused on his part. He has also sent a letter (Annexure-24 at page 123 to the writ petition) to the petitioner firm. He has also sent a letter (Annexure-24 at page 123 to the writ petition) to the petitioner firm. The letter is reproduced herein below:- "This is to inform you that inadvertently there had been 25 days' delay in filing your appeal No.114 (14) of 2017 in re: Modern Lock Manufacturing Co. Aligarh vs. APFC, Agra against the order dated 27.10.2016 of Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Agra before Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi and the same was occasioned on account of my personal problem but despite my best persuasions, Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi has declined to condone delay in filing of appeal and the same has been dismissed as time barred. Inconvenience caused to you is deeply regretted. Certified copy of order of EPF Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi's order dated 21.2.2017 in original is enclosed for your ready reference and record." 7. Shri B.B. Paul further submits that admittedly the appeal in question has been filed with the delay of 25 days caused on the part of advocate concerned and the said appeal has been dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal on account of delay in approaching it. There is no question of filing fresh appeal and the appeal is very much available before the Appellate Authority. 8. In Rafiq and anr vs. Munshilal and anr AIR 1981 SC 140 and Smt. Lachi Tewari and ors vs. Director of Land Records and ors 1984 Supp. SCC 431, Hon'ble Supreme Court, while dealing with a similar issue, held that a litigant cannot suffer for the fault of his counsel. In the said case Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under: "What is the fault of the party who having done everything in his power expected of him, would suffer because of the default of his advocate.... The problem that agitates us is whether it is proper that a party should suffer for the inaction, deliberate omission, or misdemeanour of his agent.... We cannot be a party to an innocent party suffering injustice merely because his chosen advocate defaulted." 9. Similar view has been reiterated in Goswami Krishna Murarilal Sharma v. Dhan Prakash and Ors. (1981) 4 SCC 474, where the counsel had withdrawn his Vakalatnama without notice to his client. We cannot be a party to an innocent party suffering injustice merely because his chosen advocate defaulted." 9. Similar view has been reiterated in Goswami Krishna Murarilal Sharma v. Dhan Prakash and Ors. (1981) 4 SCC 474, where the counsel had withdrawn his Vakalatnama without notice to his client. The Hon'ble Supreme Court following its earlier judgment in Rafiq (supra), held that the Court should not have proceeded to dismiss the appeal straightaway on the ground that the appellant was not present in person when his counsel had withdrawn the Vakalatnama. At least a notice ought to have been given to such a litigant to make an alternative arrangement or appear in person. 10. Similar view has been reiterated in Tahil Ram Issardas Sadarangani and ors vs. Ramchandra Issardas Sadarangani and another AIR 1993 SC 1182 ; and Malkiat Singh and anr vs. Joginder Singh and ors AIR 1998 SC 258 , observing that in case a litigant is neither negligent nor careless in prosecuting his case but his lawyer pleads no instruction, the Court should issue notice to him to make an alternative arrangement. Such a course is required in the interest of justice and the Court may proceed from the stage the earlier counsel pleaded no instruction. If the litigant is not at fault, he should not suffer for such a conduct of his counsel. 11. In Sushila Narahari and Ors. v. Nand Kumari (1996) 5 SCC 529 , the case was dismissed in default and an application for restoration was dismissed on the ground that there was a delay of 40 days in filing the application for restoration. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that the delay due to advocate's dereliction in duty withdrawing his Vakalatnama without notice to his client, warranted condonation. 12. In the present matter, the Advocate concerned has admitted the entire liability and therefore, in the interest of justice this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order cannot sustain and is quashed. 13. 12. In the present matter, the Advocate concerned has admitted the entire liability and therefore, in the interest of justice this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order cannot sustain and is quashed. 13. In view of the above, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the issue and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is disposed of finally with observations that if the petitioner firm deposits an amount of Rs.35,000/-as cost before the Appellate Authority within three days from today, the appeal in question would be considered and decided by the Appellate Authority on merits of the case in accordance with law within next two weeks. It is made clear that none of the parties will seek any unnecessary adjournment in the proceeding. 14. Let a copy of the order be given to the petitioner on payment of usual charges today.