2. The Employees Provident Fund Organisation moved the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 15.06.2009 passed by the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, in A.T.A. No. 281(3) of 2001. By virtue of the order of the Tribunal, the Tribunal set aside the order dated 28.02.2001 passed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Muzaffarpur, under Section 7A of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 ((hereinafter referred to as ‘the Provident Fund Act’) under certain controversial circumstances.

3. The appeal of the present appellant moved before the appellate Tribunal was initially dismissed for default on 21.08.2007. A restoration application was filed before the Tribunal which did not find merit in the grounds for restoration, therefore, it decided to dismiss the restoration application on 25.02.2009. Overlooking the earlier order of dismissal of the restoration application, yet another restoration application was filed before the Tribunal which decided to restore the application on 05.05.2009 and thereafter decided the matter on the merits. The Regional Provident Fund authorities of Patna got aggrieved by such an action of the Tribunal and they decided, therefore, to challenge final order of the Tribunal dated 28.02.2001 as well as the order dated 05.05.2009, which was the order of restoration.

4. The learned single Judge went through the entirety of the facts, the relevant provisions relating to such restoration application, especially Rule 15 of the Employees Provident Funds Appellate Tribunal Procedure Rules, 1997, and a catena of different decisions not only of this Court, but even the Hon’ble Apex Court and then came to the considered opinion that the Tribunal had no business or power to entertain a second restoration application after much delay and then decide the matter on merits.

5. Since the learned single Judge was satisfied that the appellate Tribunal has committed a blatant illegality by passing the order of restoration dated 05.05.2009 and thereafter the order dated 15.06.2009 on the merits, both the orders were quashed and, therefore, the present Letters Patent Appeal.

6. Submission of learned senior counsel for the appellant is that there were circumstances under which the case got dismissed, in the very first place the counsel representing the present appellant expressed his inability to assist the Tribunal at Calcutta Camp Court and requested the matter to be heard in Delhi. That aspect was overlooked and the appeal came to be dismissed and restoration application was filed. The Tribunal was not satisfied with the reasons provided, which could form the basis for restoration and the restoration application stood dismissed. Thereafter a second restoration application was filed, which was allowed. The learned senior counsel for the appellant submits that it was not a second restoration application but a kind of review application against the order dated 25.02.2009.

7. Such a submission has been negated by the learned single Judge and we are inclined to uphold that view for the reason that the Tribunal had no business to entertain a second restoration application. It was not a review application as is being suggested and the learned counsel representing the Provident Fund authorities is correct in placing reliance on a very early decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court which is the case of Satyadhyan Ghosal and others Vs. Smt. Deorajin Debi and another, reported in A.I.R. 1960 SC 941. Since these nuggets of wisdom laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court gets lost in the pages of history and, therefore, only to refresh the memory of the litigants and the lawyers, the Court gets tempted to reproduce certain paragraphs of the said decision so that the basic principles which have been well enunciated by the highest Court of the land does not get diluted by successive orders or de