JUDGMENT :

N.V. ANJARIA, J.

1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Chaitanya Joshi for the applicants and learned advocate Mr. Saurin Mehta for the respondents.

2. The three captioned Civil Applications filed in the respective Letters Patent Appeals seek prayer for amendment by substituting the name of the appellant who was the original petitioner. The Letters Patent Appeals are filed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II & Recovery officer . The respective Special Civil Applications were filed wherein the description of the petitioner was same.

3. The facts of the appeals being similar, the appellant in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1261 of 2012 has challenged order dated 13th March, 2012 of learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 2015 of 2012, whereby order dated 07th September, 2011 of the Employees' Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, camp at Jaipur came to be confirmed. The other two Letters Patent Appeal Nos. 1262-1263 of 2012 arise out of order of even date passed in Special Civil Application Nos. 2016-2017 of 2012.

3.1. By way of said order dated 07th September, 2011, the Tribunal remanded the case to the competent authority to assess the liability at the rate of 22% including the rate of interest annually, reducing the quantum of damages under Section 14B and interest under Section 7Q of the Employees' Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952.

3.2. While the Letters Patent Appeals filed by the appellant-Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II & Recovery officer came to be admitted on 15th December, 2012, by filing the present Civil Applications it was stated that it came to the knowledge of the Head of fice that there was a technical question in preferring the petition and thereafter appeal in the name of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner. It was stated that Regional Provident Fund Commissioner was the Adjudicating Authority and its preferring petition-appeal would bring about a situation where the Adjudicating Authority has filed appeal against the order of the Tribunal.

3.3. It was further averred that the issue was examined and it was decided that writ petitions should be filed in the name of Central or the State Board, as the case may be. Communication dated 15/16th September, 2014 addressed by the Additional Central Provident Fund Commissioner-I (Compliance) is produced reflecting such decision.

3.4. It was therefore prayed that name of the appellant may be permitted to be substituted to be mentioned as "Central Board of Trustees, EPF, through the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (Legal), Bhavishya Nidhi Bhavan, Behind VMC, Ward No. 6, Akota Stadium Road, Vadodara". It was submitted that amendment as above may be allowed in view of the aforementioned communication dated 15/16th September, 2014.

4. It was contended by the respondents that the petition was filed in the year 2012 and the amendment is sought for in the title in the name of the petitioner-appellant after nine years in the year 2021, which delay is without any good cause or plausible explanation. It was also stated that even if letter dated 15th June, 2014 was to be considered, the present application for amendment came to be filed only after order dated 13th July, 2021 passed by this Court in the Letters Patent Appeal in response to the preliminary objection in respect of maintainability of the appeal.

5. While the aspect of delay on both the considerations above could hardly be brushed aside, there is a weighty reason that would answer the prayer of the applicants inasmuch as the issue involved is no more res integra. The order impugned in the Special Civil Application was passed by Regional Provident Fund Commissioner & Recovery officer in capacity of Adjudicating Authority under the provisions of the Employees' Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. It was in exercise of quasi judicial powers vested in it. The order of such kind and nature came to be challenged by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner.

5