JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL) 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner present. Shri Pawan Porwal, respondent No. 1 has been served. He has sent written arguments. As per the Indian Postal Department’s report, the respondent No. 2, Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner has also been served. He is proceeded against ex parte. 3. Before the State Commission, the case was dismissed in default. The impugned order dated 8.10.2012 runs as follows: “None for the appellant. None appeared for the appellant even on 12.7.2011, 20.10.2011, 25.5.2012 and 29.6.2012, while Shri Ravindra Tiwari and Shri R. K. Dhote, learned counsel are present for the respondents. It appears that the appellant is not interested in pursuing the case. The appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned counsel for the petitioner at State Commission level entered a wrong date in his diary, therefore, he could not appear before the State Commission. This is not a true state of affairs. It appears that the petitioner has been misguided to address this argument. The record clearly reveals that the advocate did not appear on 12.7.2011, 20.10.2012, 25.5.2012 and 29.6.2012. However, in the interest of justice, we restore the case before the State Commission, subject to payment of Rs.10,000/-, which be paid to respondent No. 1, Shri Pawan Porwal through demand draft in presence of the State Commission. In case the State Commission is satisfied that the said draft has been paid to respondent No. 1, it shall proceed with the case. The parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 3.10.2013. A copy of this order be sent to both the respondents. The revision petition is disposed of accordingly. | 
