Absence from tribunal hearing due to lack of notice after presiding officer change is not wilful; appeal restored on showing prima facie case and hardship.

O R D E R

The petitioner challenges the order dated 10.09.2025 passed by the EPF Appellate Tribunal, CGIT, Chennai, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 7-I of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, came to be rejected.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

3. The petitioner is a registered Trust running educational institutions. It is the case of the petitioner that, following the retirement of the incumbent Presiding Officer of the Tribunal, the successor Presiding Officer did not issue notice, and therefore, the petitioner’s absence when the matter was taken up was not wilful. The petitioner further submits that non-restoration of the appeal would result in serious monetary loss and hardship.

4. In the above circumstances, this Court is satisfied that the petitioner has made out a prima facie case for restoration of the appeal. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed, and the impugned order dated 10.09.2025 passed by the EPF Appellate Tribunal, CGIT, Chennai, is set aside. The appeal is restored to the file of the Tribunal.

5. The petitioner shall appear before the EPF Appellate Tribunal, CGIT, Chennai, on 20.04.2026 without awaiting any further notice from the Tribunal.

6. There shall be no order as to costs.