V. Kameswar Rao, J. (Oral)

1. The challenge in this writ petition is to the order dated October 29, 2013 passed by the Employees’ Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal in short) in appeal No. A.T.A. 685 (11) 2010, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated April 20, 2007 passed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Amritsar under Section 7A of the Employees’ Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (Act in short), was dismissed on the ground that the appeal was barred by limitation.

2. Even though, I may state here that the Tribunal has made some observations on the merits of the case, I refrain from going into the merits of the case in view of my conclusion here-in-under.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that after the order dated April 20, 2007 in proceedings under Section 7A of the Act was passed, the petitioner filed a review petition on May 27, 2007. The review petition was rejected by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner on July 10, 2007. It is his submission that on wrong legal advice, a suit for declaration was filed by the petitioner before the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Gurdaspur on August 14, 2007. The suit was decided on August 26, 2010, wherein the Court had held that the suit before the Civil Court is barred by the provisions of the Act. The Civil Judge returned the plaint to the petitioner to file the same in an appropriate forum. It is also his submission that a certified copy of the order of the Civil Court was applied on September 04, 2010 and the certified copy was received on September 23, 2010. Immediately thereafter, the appeal was filed before the Tribunal on October 23, 2010.

4. The only submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the period spent by the petitioner in pursuing his remedy before the Civil Court need to be condoned. If the said period is condoned, then the appeal is within time. He relied upon the following judgments in support of his contentions:

1. The State of West Bengal Vs. The Administrator, Howrah Municipality and Ors., AIR 1972 SC 749

2. State of Haryana Vs. Chandra Mani and others, (1996) 3 SCC 132

3. Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs. Sh. Masood Ahmed Khan and Ors., (2010) 9 SCC 496

4. Shankarrao Vs. Chandrasenkunwar, AIR 1987 SC 1726

5. M/s General Sales and Service Thru its Proprietor vs. Union of India, W.P.C. No 62147/2009, Allahabad High Court

6. G. Ramegowda, Major and Ors. Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Bangalore, (1988) 2 SCC 142

7. Shakuntala Devi Jain Vs. Kuntal Kumari and Ors., AIR 1969 SC 575

8. Concord of India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Nirmala Devi and Ors., (1979) 4 SCC 365

9. Mata Din Vs. A. Narayanan, (1969) 2 SCC 770, AIR1970SC1953

5. On the other hand, Mr. R.C.Chawla, learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that the appeal is clearly barred by time. He would state that the Tribunal had no power to condone the delay. He relied upon the provisions of Section 7-I of the Act to show that the maximum time within which an appeal can be filed is 60 days and the power to condone any delay is only to the extent of further 60 days. He would rely upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Assistant Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Meerut Vs. Employees’ Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal and Ors., 2005 (VII) AD (Delhi) 155. He specifically referred to para 29 of the said judgment wherein, the Supreme Court was dealing in an identical fact in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P., Lucknow Vs. Parson Tools and Plants, Kanpur, AIR 1975 SC 1039 to contend that when Section 5 of the Limitation Act itself is not applicable to condone the delay, the power to condone delay because of pursuing a remedy elsewhere on a principle akin to Section 14(2) of the Limitation Act, would also not be available.

6. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the par