ORDER

The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner mill is a limited company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956. The petitioner started its commercial production in the year 1990 and has been doing business profitably. It has been complying with all the provisions of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter called as 'the Act'). The petitioner further averred that there was a huge employee turn over which is peculiar to the industry, the petitioner had to recruit apprentices for imparting training to them so that their services could be utilised after completion of their training. The said apprentices were recruited under the Certified Standing Orders applicable to the establishment and as such, they are excluded employees as envisaged under paragraph 26(3) of the EPF Scheme. Without considering the said legal position, the EPF authorities initiated enquiry under Section 7-A of the Act and for which, the petitioner submitted a reply on 12.08.2004. However, the authorities chosen to pass an order under Section 7-A of the Act on 18.03.2005 demanding a sum of Rs.10,12,732.40 as contribution due for the period between April, 1999 and July, 2004. The orders passed by the authority was contrary to law and aggrieved over the said order, the petitioner filed a Writ Petition before this Court in W.P.(MD)No.2987 of 2005. Initially, this Court granted interim order at the time of admission, however, on 01.10.2007 this Court dismissed the Writ Petition with liberty to file an appeal before the first respondent as contemplated under Section 7-I of the Act. In terms of the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 7-I of the Act before the first respondent and the first respondent at the time of admission has pleased to direct the petitioner to deposit 50% of the amount and the said condition has also been duly complied with and the appeal was taken on file by the first respondent in ATA No.286(13)/2008 and also granted interim stay for the balance amount.

2.While the matter stood thus, the first respondent posted the appeal for hearing at its camp in Coimbatore on 28.12.2010. However, as the petitioner mill had engaged a counsel based at New Delhi to handle the appeal, they requested the Tribunal to grant adjournment and hear the appeal at New Delhi itself. However, without appreciating such a request, the appellate authority dismissed the appeal on 14.02.2011 and the same was served on the petitioner on 09.03.2011. Challenging the same, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

3.The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that though the petitioner filed an appeal before the first respondent, the said appeal was not prosecuted in letter and spirit since the petitioner has engaged a Counsel at Delhi and the said appeal was conducted at Coimbatore. So, in view of the above, the petitioner could not able to engage a Counsel at Coimbatore for which the order was passed in the presence of a Junior Counsel who represented the case before the camp of the first respondent at Coimbatore.

4.Further, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner management had entered into 18(1) settlement with the employees and hence, the settlement is binding on the parties in which the apprentices is not workman and the petitioner need not to pay the EPF contribution for the employees. Further, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the Certified Standing Orders treated the entitlement for apprentices and the apprentices are exempted from payment of contribution and without considering all those things, the first respondent passed order which is unsustainable in law. Accordingly, the petitioner prayed for allowing this Writ Petition.

5.Though notice was served on the respondents, no one appeared on behalf of the respondents. Since the matter is pending right from 2011 onwards, this Court is inclined to dispos