The right of appeal is statutory and subject to limitation; an appeal dismissed for delay cannot be reconsidered on merits.

JUDGMENT :

A.D. Maria Clete, J.

Heard.

2. The writ petitioner, a matriculation school in Dharmapuri, has filed the present petition challenging the order of the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal (Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chennai) in EPFA No. 222/2019, dated 13.11.2019, by which the appeal was dismissed as barred by limitation.

3. When the writ petition was taken up for admission on 10.01.2020, the standing counsel for the Respondent entered an appearance, and the matter was directed to be listed after four weeks. In the meantime, an interim stay was granted, subject to the condition that the petitioner deposits a sum of Rs.10 lakhs within four weeks. When the case was subsequently heard on 25.02.2020, the petitioner informed the Court that a sum of Rs.3 lakhs had been paid to the Respondent through a Demand Draft dated 14.02.2020 and filed a memo seeking an extension of four weeks to remit the balance amount of Rs.7 lakhs. Accepting the request, the Court extended the time for payment by four weeks, stipulating that failure to comply would result in the automatic vacation of the stay.

4. The Respondents filed a counter affidavit dated 31.12.2021. The petitioner contends that the school was established in 2004. Initially, with classes up to the 6th standard, the institution had 12 staff members, which later increased to 20 by 2012. On 05.04.2017, the Respondent issued a notice under Section 7A, demanding contributions under the Provident Fund Scheme and computing the amount payable for the period from 2012 to 2017. The enquiry commenced on 28.04.2017, during which the petitioner submitted all relevant registers and the balance sheet. The petitioner was duly represented by an authorized representative throughout the proceedings.

5. On 16.04.2019, the Respondent issued an order assessing the dues payable by the school for the period from November 2012 to March 2017, amounting to Rs.24,40,392/-, which included contributions for both teaching and non-teaching staff. As the said amount remained unpaid, the Respondent initiated proceedings for the sale of the school's properties under Section 8B of the Employees' Provident Funds Act. The petitioner challenged the order passed under Section 7A by filing an appeal before the EPF Tribunal. However, by order dated 13.11.2019, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal on the ground of an abnormal delay of 124 days in filing, stating that, as per the prescribed time limit of 60 days, it lacked the power to condone any delay beyond that period.

6. Before the appeal could be disposed of, the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P. No. 35643 of 2019, challenging the Respondent's order dated 16.04.2019. However, this Court, by order dated 02.01.2020, dismissed the writ petition, granting the petitioner permission to withdraw the petition with liberty to file a fresh one with an appropriate prayer. The petitioner has now filed the present writ petition, challenging not only the Tribunal’s order dated 13.11.2019 but also the Respondent’s order dated 16.04.2019.

7. In the counter affidavit, the Respondent stated that the school's employment strength in June 2004 was 38, and after a detailed inquiry, the number of non-teaching staff was also ascertained. Based on the Enforcement Officer's report, it was determined that the dues payable for 25 teaching staff from November 2012 to March 2017 amounted to Rs.12,87,202/-, while the dues for 17 non-teaching staff for the same period totaled Rs.11,53,190/-, bringing the total liability of the school management to Rs.24,40,392/-. The Respondent contended that the order issued under Section 7A was legally valid and did not suffer from any infirmity.

8. The counsel for the