HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 9614 of 2025 Court No. - 17 HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J. 1. Heard Sri Anand Singh Pawar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ajit Kumar Dwivedi, Advocate who has put in appearance on behalf of the opposite parties no.2 to 4 (Employees Provident Fund Organization) and perused the records. Nobody has put in appearance on behalf of Union of India although the cause list shows name of ASGI. The opposite party no.5 is Central Railside Warehouse Company Limited which is a proforma party and no prejudice would be caused to the aforesaid opposite party by the order proposed to be passed. 2. The learned counsel for the opposite parties no.2 to 4 has advanced his submissions in opposition of the petition and he has stated that keeping in view the order proposed to be passed he does not propose to file any counter affidavit. 3. By means of the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioners have challenged the validity of an order dated 31.08.2023, passed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Regional Office, Lucknow (a copy whereof has been annexed as Annexure No.1 to the writ petition) and an order dated 04.07.2025 rejecting the application for review of the aforesaid order dated 31.08.2023. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Anand Singh Pawar, Nishtha Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.S.G.I., Akhilesh Pratap Singh M/S Hitech Services Thru. Partner / Auth. Sign. Mr. A.K. Dubey And Another .....Petitioner(s) Union Of India Thru. Secy. Mini. Of Labour And Emp. New Delhi And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it is mentioned in the order dated 31.08.2023 that although the case was adjourned repetitively and merely 28 hearings were held over a period of four years, the establishment failed to cooperate in the proceedings and provide relevant records. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had submitted its reply on 04.08.2023, but same has not been taken into consideration in the order dated 31.08.2023. The review of order dated 31.08.2023 was sought on this ground but same has been rejected on the ground of delay. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner ought to have taken into consideration the pleas taken by the petitioner in its reply which was served on 04.08.2023. 7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the opposite parties no.2 to 4 has submitted that the petitioner had not submitted any reply on any of the dates fixed in the matter and it appears that the petitioner has submitted its reply after closure of the hearing in the matter and, therefore, the reply could not be considered in the order dated 31.08.2023. 8. There is no denial that the petitioner had submitted its version before the authority concerned before passing of the final order in the matter. In these circumstances, propriety demanded that the petitioner's version which was available before authority concerned ought to have been taken into consideration before passing the final order. 9. In these circumstances, the impugned order dated 31.08.2023, passed without taking into consideration the pleas by the petitioner in its reply dated 04.06.2023 is unsustainable in law. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the order dated 31.08.2023, passed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, a copy whereof has been annexed as Annexure WRIC No. 9614 of 2025 2 No.1 to the writ petition and all consequential orders are hereby quashed. The matter is remanded to the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner for being decided afresh after taking into consideration the pleas taken by the petitioner in his reply dated 04.08.2023 and after fixing a date for hearing the petitioner. It is clarified that the authority will give a sufficient prior notice of the date of hearing to the petitioner on which date the petitioner will be heard and no adjournment will be granted to the petitioner. The authority shall pass fresh orders after hearing the petitioner expeditiously in accordance with law keeping in view the pleas taken by the petitioner. October 7, 2025 Ram. WRIC No. 9614 of 2025 3 (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench