A vacation bench of Justice Abhay Oka and Justice Rajesh Bindal noted that the Federation had preferred an appeal before the top court without disclosing the fact that an application filed before the High Court by the Federation in the matter had been dismissed.

"This is a clear suppression of facts. Sorry state of affairs. This cannot go on in Supreme Court. We expect better from the bar than suppression of facts," the Court remarked, taking strong exception to the Federation's omission.

The Court was hearing an appeal preferred by the Federation against a March 24 order of Delhi High Court.

By that order, the High Court had issued notice on an appeal preferred by the Federation against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) and posted the matter for further hearing on September 5.

The Federation moved the apex court against the long adjournment.

When the matter was taken up on June 25, Justice Oka was quick to point out to the advocate for Federation regarding the lack of details in the appeal about an application preferred by the Federation before the High Court seeking advancement of the hearing in the appeal scheduled on September 5.

On May 23, the High Court had dismissed the said application.

"Before you argue anything, first tell us that your grievance is that without passing an order, the matter has been adjourned to September 5 by High Court. You had moved an application on May 3 for preponement of hearing and the same was dismissed. Was it not your duty to inform this court about this said order?," Justice Oka questioned the advocate for Federation.

Non-disclosure of details of proceedings of May 23 was a clear suppression of facts, Justice Oka said.

"If we would not have done our homework and had not went to the High Court website to check, then this would not have been known," he remarked.

When the advocate for Federation tried to convince the bench that it was a mistake on his part and he did not intended to suppress any fact, Justice Oka said that it cannot be brushed aside as a mistake.

"It is not a mistake. We have to go to the Delhi High Court website and download the order. In the highest court of the country, judges are not able to trust the lawyers and therefore they have to directly go to the High Court website and find such suppression of facts. How can this be going? You have suppressed facts about May 3 application and it's dismissal on May 23 when you did not press it," Justice Oka said.

The Court expressed its displeasure and proceeded to reject the appeal while imposing costs of ₹25,000.

"Petitioner represents All India EPF State Federation. Petitioner moved CAT with a grievance that recommendations of the redressal committee should not be accepted by respondent. The plea was rejected. Petitioner preferred a writ before the Delhi High Court. The High Court issued notice on March 24 and directed the case listing on September 5. The present SLP challenges the March 24 order and was filed in June. The Delhi High Court website shows that an application was filed on May 3 for preponement, which was not pressed by petitioner and the same was dismissed on May 23. Most importantly in the SLP filed before this court, the application of May 3 and outcome of May 23 was suppressed. We are dismissing it," the Court ordered.

The costs have to be deposited with the Delhi State Legal Services Authority.