The main legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between delay in filing and re-filing of an appeal, and the impact of interim orders after the final disposal of the proceedings.

JUDGMENT

Harinder Singh Sidhu, J. - This Contempt petition has been filed for initiating contempt proceedings against the respondents alleging wilful disobedience of order dated 20.03.2020 passed in CWP No.6988-2020.

2. The petitioner Dhoot Developers Pvt. Ltd. is a Company. Respondent No.1 is Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Bathinda.

3. The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (authorised officer under Section 7-A of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952) (for short 'the 1952 Act') had passed an order, whereby, the petitioner had been directed to deposit an amount of Rs.64,74,734/- on receipt of the said order. The petitioner preferred a statutory appeal under Section 7(1) of the 1952 Act before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court (CGIT), New Delhi. Vide order dated 01.12.2017, his appeal/complaint was forwarded by the CGIT, New Delhi to CGIT-I, Chandigarh as the matter fell under the jurisdiction of the said Division.

4. It was the case of the petitioner that when the appeal was originally filed there was a delay of only 57 days in filing the appeal. The office of the CGIT, Chandigarh raised certain objections and returned the Memorandum of Appeal to the counsel for the petitioner. However, the appeal could not be re-filed as the original file collected from the office of the Tribunal was lost. The appeal was re-filed only on 10.06.2019. Along with the appeal, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay in re-filing the appeal was also filed. The application was dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated 28.02.2020 on the ground that under Rule 7(2) of the Employees Provident Fund Procedure Rules, 1997, the Tribunal had no power to extend the delay beyond a maximum period of 120 days. Assailing the aforesaid order of the CGIT, Chandigarh, the petitioner filed CWP No.6988 of 2020, wherein, an interim order dated 20.03.2020 was passed, whereby, the respondents were directed to issue instructions to the Bankers of the petitioner to permit the petitioner to operate its accounts. It was recorded in the order that the petitioner undertakes to get an FDR made from one or more of the accounts for an amount of Rs.40,00,000/- (forty lakhs only). It was directed that the petitioner would give an undertaking before the respondents that the said FDR will not be encashed till final orders were passed by the Court in the writ petition.

5. The operative part of order dated 20.03.2020 reads as under:

"In the meantime, respondent-authorities are directed to issue appropriate instructions to the Bankers of the petitioner to permit the petitioner to operate their accounts as the petitioner undertakes to get an FDR made from one or more of these accounts for an amount of Rs.40,00,000/- (Forty lakhs only). The petitioner would give a photocopy of the said FDR along with an affidavit and undertaking to the respondent-authorities that the said FDR shall not be encashed till final orders passed by this Court in the present writ petition."

6. It is the case of the petitioner that in terms of the order dated 20.03.2020 the petitioner Company got prepared an FDR of Rs.40 lacs dated 26.05.2020 for a period of one year with Axis Bank Ltd. Gurgaon. A copy of the same was sent to the EPFO on 29.05.2020. An affidavit-cum-undertaking dated 02.06.2020 was also furnished.

7. Cwp No.6988 of 2020 was allowed vide judgment and order dated 06.10.2020. The High Court held that the Tribunal had committed an error in over-looking the fact that in the case of the petitioner the delay was in re-filing of the appeal and not in filing of the appeal. It was held that the Tribunal had failed to note the difference regarding delay in filing and re-filing. The order of the Tribunal dated 28.02.2020 was set aside and the matter was remitted to the Tribunal to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.

8. The operative part of the final order dated 06.10.2020 passed in CWP-6988-2020 re