Unexplained delays in filing writ petitions lead to dismissal, emphasizing the need for government departments to act diligently and provide reasonable justifications for delays.

JUDGMENT :

A.D. Maria Clete, J.

Heard.

2. All these writ petitions have been filed by the Employees Provident Fund Department, challenging various orders passed by the Employees Provident Fund Tribunal, Delhi, which granted relief to the Respondents and interfered with the orders issued by the authorities under Section 7A of the EPF Act. Notably, there has been an inordinate delay in filing these writ petitions, as illustrated in the table below:

3. Although the duration of delay varies, the deponent of the affidavit, namely the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Coimbatore, has provided a standardized explanation for the delay in all affidavits. In W.P. No. 12577 of 2020, he stated in Paragraph 12 as follows:

“It is submitted that the documents were handed over to the earlier panel counsel for the petitioner. Due to ill health, he did not file the writ petition challenging the order of tribunal in time. The same was come to know recently, immediately. The petitioner received the back bundle and entrusted the case to the present counsel. The delay in filing the writ petition is neither willful nor wanton. The delay is not condoned the poor employees will be put irreparable loss and hardship.”

4. Although notices were ordered in all the writ petitions by the respective learned judges, it was only in W.P. No. 12577 of 2020 that the learned judge, Justice P.D. Audikesavalu, upon its admission on 11.09.2020, passed the following order:

“ The order in ATA No. 750(13)12 passed by the Appellate Tribunal, which is impugned in this Writ Petition, has been passed on 05.08.2013, but the instant Writ Petition has been presented before the Registry of this Court on 11.02.2020. There is conspicuously no explanation in the affidavit for that inordinate delay in filling the Writ Petition. The Petitioner is required to file a supplementary affidavit explaining the reasons for the same by 18.09.2020 without fail.”

5. In compliance with the said direction, the same deponent filed an affidavit dated Nil, September 2020, further elaborating on the reason extracted above:

“It is submitted that the Employees Provident Fund Tribunal, New Delhi set aside the 7A order on 05.08.2013. The order was received on 19.09.2013. The Authorized Officer directed to file writ petition before the Hon’ble High Court of Madras. Therefore, the case was entrusted to then Panel Counsel, Mr.Gunasekaran and the documents pertaining to the case were handed over to the counsel vide letter dated 04.11.2013. However, the Panel Counsel forwarded the draft affidavit only on 18.12.2015.

Subsequently new advocates were empanelled and the case was entrusted case to the newly appointed Counsel. This counsel due to ill health could not pursue the cases pertaining to Coimbatore Region to the best of his ability. The Counsel was bed ridden and consequently expired and this case was not presented / filed before the Hon’ble High Court. On learning about the above facts the office staff of the petitioner organization made in several attempts to collect the bundle from his office but the results were futile.

Thereafter, the selection committee selected a Coimbatore based advocate for the block period of 2017-2019 who subsequently resigned the post of EPF Counsel for the Coimbatore Region due to personal reasons.

It is submitted that a case was moved to our higher authority for appointing another counsel for Coimbatore Region. It was a very intricate period for this office to pursue the cases filed and pending before the Hon’ble High Court of Madras until the Panel Counsel of Salem Region was empanelled to represent cases pertaining to Coimbatore Regional (addit