Allahabad High Court
M/S Dcm Shriram Ltd. Loni Anjhi Hardoi ... vs Regional Provident Fund ... on 8 October, 2020
Author: Rajan Roy
Bench: Rajan Roy
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH ?Court No. - 16 Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 15404 of 2020 Petitioner :- M/S Dcm Shriram Ltd. Loni Anjhi Hardoi Thru. Auth. Signatory Respondent :- Regional Provident Fund Commissioner,E.P.F.O. Lucknow & Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Nischal Jagdhari,Adarsh Jagdhari,Ram Kishor Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J.
Shri K.K. Pandey, learned Counsel for Union of India has connected for video conferencing so has Shri Akhilesh Pratap Singh, Counsel for the opposite parties no. 1 - 3.
The petitioner has moved an application for impleadment of Union of India in pursuance to the order of this Court as informed.
Learned Counsel for the opposite parties no. 1 - 3 says that the petitioner deliberately did not serve a notice of the petition upon him instead he served the notice upon the office of the C.S.C. through mail as claimed by the petitioners.
The Counsel for Union of India says that the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Provident Fund Tribunal is not holding Court is incorrect. The Tribunal holds sitting for two weeks at Lucknow and remaining two weeks at Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh. He informs that from 21.09.2020 to 01.10.2020 the Tribunal held its sitting at Lucknow and in fact on 24.09.2020, the case of the petitioner was listed but a request was made for adjournment by Shri Jagdhari, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Accordingly, the matter was adjourned to 08.10.2020 i.e. today and as the Court was not available, the matter has been posted for 26.10.2020.
Shri Jagdhari says that he had appeared but the Court did not hear the matter and date was given, accordingly he put his signature on the order sheet.
Be that as it may, on being confronted as to why he served the notice upon the State which was not a party and did not serve notice upon opposite parties no. 1 - 3, all that he could say was that it was a bonafide error on the part of his clerk. Such errors are fundamental and can lead to grave miscarriage of justice. This aspect should have been clarified by Shri Jagdhari before addressing the Court on the earlier dates which resulted in a partial interim order.
Although the case of the petitioner is fixed before the Tribunal on 26.10.2020, this Court hereby orders that the said date will be preponed to 20.10.2020 as the Tribunal is expected to hold its sitting from 19.10.2020 to 30.10.2020 at Lucknow. The matter shall be heard by the Tribunal on the said date.
In view of the above there is no reason to entertain this petition any further, it is accordingly disposed of in the aforesaid terms without prejudice to the rights of the parties in the proceedings pending before the Tribunal.
Order Date :- 8.10.2020 Lokesh Kumar