JUDGMENT :

S.N. Prasad, J.

This writ petition is under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order dated 31.05.2004 passed by the Asst. Provident Fund Commissioner (C), Rourkela under Annexure-5 and the order dated 24.05.2005 passed by the E.P.F. Tribunal under Annexure-10 and stay the further proceeding of the Certificate Case No.10 of 2005 dated 07.04.2005 during pendency of the writ petition.

2. Brief facts of the case of the petitioner is that the petitioner-establishment is a manufacturer of Sodium Sulphate (Yellow) and Sodium Dichromate (Hydrous & Anhydrous) since last 13 years from the date of filing of the writ petition and is having a permanent E.P.F. Code No. OR/7009. The joint squad consisting of the Enforcement Officer, SRO, Rourkela (EPFO) and the Insurance Inspector, ESIC, Rourkela conducted a joint inspection of the petitioner-establishment on 07.03.2003 and on physical verification it was allegedly found that 19 workers engaged for the work of the establishment have been allegedly evaded from payment of EPF dues from 03/1994 and as a result they were not getting the EPF benefits since their date of eligibility, hence a proceeding under Section 7-A of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions of the Act, 1952 was initiated in which the authorized representative of the petitioner appeared and submitted records including balance-sheet for the year 2000-01 and 2001-02 to establish that there has been no evasion of employees and no EPF dues whatsoever has been evaded.

The authorized officer has passed the order under Sub-section 3A of Section 7A of the EPF and M.P. Act, 1952 imposing EPF dues of Rs. 4,50,808/- assessed for the period from 03/1994 to 04/2004 along with interest under Section 7Q of the Act amounting to Rs. 1,83,568/- for the period from 07/1997 to 04/2004.

According to the petitioner, the order passed by the EPF authority under Section 7A is without any basis and even though it was closed due to illegal stoppage of work/strike by the worker since 16.03.2001 and even on the date of inspection i.e. on 07.03.2003 but without appreciating this aspect of the matter, the order has been passed under Section 7A of the EPF and MP Act, 1952.

It is the further case of the petitioner that he has preferred appeal against the order passed by the EPF authority under Section 7A being ATA No.397/(10)/2005 but the same has been dismissed on the ground of limitation and as such according to the petitioner he has been deprived from a valuable right by its non-consideration by the appellate tribunal, hence this writ petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the order passed by the appellate authority has relied upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.66766 of 2005 decided on 07.07.2006 on the issue of dismissal of appeal by the Tribunal and to substantiate the argument that even after dismissal of the writ petition, the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has got wide power to exercise it in consideration of the issue on merit.

4. The opposite parties have appeared and filed counter affidavit inter alia therein it has been stated that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the competent authority in exercise of power conferred under Section 7A of the Act, 1952 which has been passed after providing ample opportunity of hearing to the petitioner-establishment, however the petitioner-establishment has appeared intermittently and not produced the entire record as required, as such the authority having no option but to decide the issue on merit by adopting the principle of best assessment basing upon the available records considering the fact that the Act 1952 is the beneficial legislation and also considering the fact that the petitioner-establishment is trying to delay the matter by not appearing or not producing the documents.

He submits that even the petitioner-establishment has not fo