JUDGMENT :

This Court is anguished to remark that, in fact, no assistance has been provided by the learned counsel for the respondents as upon being called upon to answer the argument as it has been extended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, he rather submits that the matter may be remitted back so that it may be decided afresh.

2. In fact, this conduct of the counsel for the respondent, in itself is unbecoming of an officer of Court and, particularly, when the respondent is defending a cause of an organization.

3. In Writ-Petition No.1823 of 2011, the petitioner, which is a small scale proprietorship firm in the business of lime stone, has put a challenge to the order dated 14.07.2011 passed by Employees’ Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in A.T.A. No.317(14)2006 under Section 7 I of the Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (For short “the Act of 1952”); order dated 13.12.2005; and 19.04.2006 passed by Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, EPFO, Dehradun under Section 7-A and 7-B respectively of the Act of 1952, which are enclosed as annexure No.1, 2 and 3 respectively to the writ-petition.

4. In Writ-Petition No.1822 of 2011, the petit