The EPF & MP Act being Special Social Welfare Legislation designed to protect the interest of marginalized workmen, the provisions of the Limitation Act cannot be made applicable in the absence of any legislative intent.

Rajiv Narain Raina, J.

This petition has been filed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Ludhiana against two orders passed by the Presiding Officer, Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Tribunal').

2. The first one is dated 21.05.1999 overruling the objection of the petitioning - Organisation that Section 14(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Limitation Act') is not applicable in a proceeding before the Tribunal, therefore, the period spent in any proceeding before any other authority in the Organisation is not to be excluded for the purpose of treating the appeal within the time allowed by statute. The Tribunal has held that benefit of Section 14(2) of the Limitation Act is available to the establishment. The Organisation is unhappy with the judgment and is assailing the order as bad in this petition praying that it be quashed.

3. The signature tune in the judgment of the Supreme Court delivered in case The Commissioner of Sales Tax, UP, Lucknow v. Prason Tools and Plants, Kanpur, (1975) 4 SCC 22 has been distinguished by the Tribunal for the reason that the Legislature has not excluded or curtailed the power of condoning the delay by the Tribunal for any length of time, the limitation of 60 days has been inhibited by the rule making authority but there is no provision outlawing reception of appeal in the principal Act beyond a certain time. Any law made by a rule making authority cannot supersede the provision of law made by the Legislature. Thus, the Tribunal has inferred wrongly that the Legislature has not excluded the power of this Tribunal from considering the provisions of Section 5 to Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

4. The Tribunal has also distinguished the law in Nityanand M. Joshi and another v. LIC, AIR 1970 SC 209, wherein the Supreme Court observed that in view of Sections 4 and 5 of the Limitation Act, it would be clear that a scheme of the Act is that which only deals with applications to Court and the labour court is not a court within the meaning of the Limitation Act. Therefore, an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act') cannot be held as barred by Article 132 of the Limitation Act insofar as the claim was for period beyond 3 years. This ruling has been discarded for the reason that it does not apply to the labour courts to entertain remedy despite lapse of time.

5. Next was cited a judgment of the Calcutta High Court in Minor Subir Rajan Mandal v. Sita Nath Mukherjee, AIR 1994 Calcutta 166. Here the Calcutta High Court held that Section 5 of the Limitation Act was expressly excluded, while the case in hand concerned exclusion of provisions of Section 14(2) of the Limitation Act. There was another judgment cited by the Organisation before the Tribunal, namely, Officer on Special Duty (Land Acquisition) and another v. Shah Manilal Chandulal and others, (1996) 9 SCC 414. In this case, Their Lordships of the Supreme Court considered a matter to answer the question whether the Collector/Land Acquisition Officer while make a reference under Section 18(1) acts as a statutory authority and answered that proposition holding that it was not a Court for the purpose of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act cannot be applied to the proviso to Section 18(2) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, whereas the Tribunal was treated as a court for all purposes. The Tribunal had observed that even in the procedural rules, the Central Government has prescribed that an order shall be pronounced in Court. If the Tribunal is a Court, then the Limitation Act applies and the exemptions therein will follow suit despite expiry of the period of limitation prescribed to do acts and things necessary to maintain a lis.

6. The Tribunal further reasoned that Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act makes the provision of Limitation Act appli