Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR, J
M/s.Sudarson Chakra Art Crafts – Appellant
Versus
The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees’ Provident Fund Organization – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to tribunal's rejection of appeal due to absence. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. prima facie case made for appeal restoration. (Para 4) |
| 3. appeal restored; no costs ordered. (Para 5) |
O R D E R
The petitioner challenges the order, dated 28.08.2025 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 on either side and perused the materials available on record.
3. The petitioner concern is involving in the manufacturing of daily and monthly calender. 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 allow
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
