A Tribunal can recall procedural orders to ensure justice, while substantive reviews require explicit statutory authority, as clarified in the Employees' Provident Funds Act.

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)--This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.

2. The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner challenging the impugned order dated 13th November, 2019 by which the Employees' Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter `EPFAT') has allowed an application filed by the Respondent/APFC (hereinafter `APFC'). By the impugned order the EPFAT has recalled its earlier order dated 13th April, 2016 by which the appeal of the Petitioner had stood finally allowed.

3. The genesis of the dispute is a demand which was made by the Respondent-Authority against the Petitioner under Sections 7Q and 14B of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter `EPF Act'). The APFC directed a sum of Rs.14,35,568/- to be paid as interest and damages, vide order dated 21st April, 2015. The said order was challenged by the Petitioner and was listed before the EPFAT on 5th June, 2015. On the said date, a conditional order was passed granting an interim stay of the impugned order of the APFC, pending verification of payments made by the Petitioner to the APFC. The APFC was directed to file a counter affidavit within 30 days. On 6th November, 2015, it was noted by the EPFAT that the counter was not filed by APFC and on 10th February, 2016, last opportunity was granted to file the counter affidavit, subject to deposit of cost of Rs.5,000/-. On 31st March, 2016, though the counter was filed, the proof of payment of cost was not placed on record. Accordingly, opportunity was granted for producing the receipt of costs. Again, on 13th April, 2016, the receipt of cost was not placed on record. Accordingly, the reply/counter affidavit of APFC was struck off and the appeal was allowed by way of default. No consideration was given by the EPFAT on merits. The said order dated 13th April, 2016 reads as under:

"Today case is fixed for producing receipt regarding payment of cost of Rs. 5000/- in Delhi State Legal Service Authority. No receipt regarding payment of cost of Rs.5000/- placed on case file on behalf of respondent.

Perusal of case file duly reveals that cost of Rs.5000/- was imposed on respondent for not filing counter reply on time. Despite availing sufficient opportunity, respondent not deposited cost of Rs.5000/- so counter reply filed on behalf of respondent can not be read over.

Present appeal filed on behalf of appellant u/s 7-I of the EPF & MP Act, 1952 (the Act) challenging order dated 29.04.2015 passed by respondent u/s 14-B & 7- Q of the Act. As counter reply filed by respondent is not to be entertained for not depositing cost so this Tribunal has no option but to presume that respondent has to say nothing against the appeal filed by appellant so accordingly appeal filed by appellant is allowed.

Impugned order dated 29.04.2015 passed by respondent u/s 14-B & 7-Q of the Act set aside. Copy of the order be sent to the parties as per law. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance."

4. The APFC thereafter moved an application seeking restoration of the appeal dated 28th May, 2018. In the said application, an explanation was given that the costs were in fact deposited by the authority and was handed over to their counsel. However, the demand draft was misplaced by the court clerk and the Bank had to be thereafter approached to certify that the demand draft was misplaced. A fresh demand draft thereafter got issued and was then deposited before the Tribunal. In the light of these facts, vide the impugned order dated 13th November, 2019, the Tribunal imposed further costs of Rs.5,000/- to be deposited with the DLSA and permitted participation of the APFC in the h