Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, J.
M/S Kushang Security And House Keeping Private Limited - Petitioner
Vs.
Presiding Officer Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court And Another - Respondents
Writ C No. 6196 of 2019
Decided On : 19-08-2019
Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 – Section 7I , 14B – Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 5, 29(2) , 4 to 24 – Rules, 1997 – Rule 7 – Seeking quashing of order passed by Presiding Officer, under Section 7I of Act, 1952 – Challenged – Whether time limit granted in terms of statutory provisions under EPF Act and rules made there under with regard to filing of an appeal can be extended beyond period prescribed by granting benefit of provisions of Section 5 of Act, 1963 – Held, Principle of statutory interpretation that where statute confers power on authority to condone delay only to limited extent same cannot be stretched or extended beyond what has been provided under statute – Rule making authority for filing an appeal and also extended period has been provided, and no further extension thereof has been envisaged or contemplated – Appellate Authority granted any further extension – Order passed by Appellate Authority recording its conclusion that appeal was filed beyond statutory period of limitation, cannot be faulted with – Petition dismissed. (Paras: 34, 35&38)
Facts of the case:
Seeking quashing of order passed by Presiding Officer, under Section 7I of Act, 1952 – Challenged – Whether time limit granted in terms of statutory provisions under EPF Act and rules made there under with regard to filing of an appeal can be extended beyond period prescribed by granting benefit of provisions of Section 5 of Act, 1963.
Findings of the court:
Principle of statutory interpretation that where statute confers power on authority to condone delay only to limited extent same cannot be stretched or extended beyond what has been provided under statute – Rule making authority for filing an appeal and also extended period has been provided, and no further extension thereof has been envisaged or contemplated – Appellate Authority granted any further extension – Order passed by Appellate Authority recording its conclusion that appeal was filed beyond statutory period of limitation, cannot be faulted with.
Result: Petition dismissed
JUDGMENT :
Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, J.
1. Heard Sri Virendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jagdish Pathak, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2.
2. The present petition has been filed seeking quashing of the order dated 4.2.2019 passed by the Presiding Officer, Central Government, Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Kanpur in an appeal preferred under Section 7I of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (Act No. 19 of 1952), (hereinafter referred to as 'the EPF Act') registered as Appeal No. A.T.A. (Misc.) No.03/19. The petitioner has also sought to challenge the earlier order of levy of damages under Section 14B and interest under Section 7Q of the EPF Act dated 19.10.2015 passed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organization, Kanpur (in short 'APFC').
3. The records of the case indicate that the petitioner establishment, having Registration No. UP/39140 had failed to pay the provident fund dues for the period 08.09.2012 to 31.12.2014. A Quantification Notice No. 180510 dated 10.1.2015 was issued, and after several opportunities being granted to the petitioner which were not availed, the APFC passed an order (Levy Order No. 174530) dated 19.10.2015 in respect of the remittance for the period 09/12 to 12/2014 levying an amount of Rs.1,33,282/- as damages under Section 14B and an amount of Rs.1,89,937/- as interest under Section 7Q of the EPF Act. An order dated 22.5.2017 levying damages and interest for a subsequent period was also passed against the petitioner establishment.
4. The petitioner establishment preferred an appeal under Section 7I of the EPF Act, registered as Appeal No. A.T.A. (Misc.) No.03/19, against the two orders dated 19.10.2015 and 22.05.2017 referred to above. The appellant also prayed for stay of the operation of the aforementioned orders as well as notices dated 4/11.01.2017, 09.10.18 and 19.11.18.
5. Objections were filed by the APFC Kanpur (respondent in the appeal) strongly opposing the maintainability of the appeal and submitting that the appeal was highly belated and that the validity of two separate orders could not be challenged in a joint appeal. On the question of limitation reliance was placed upon the judgments in the case of Lotus Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Asst. Provident Fund Commissioner, (Compl.), Rourkela 2018 (157) FLR 440 (Ori.H.C.) and M/s Port Shramik Cooperative Enterprises Ltd. Vs. Employees Provident Fund Organization 2018 (156) FLR 363 (Cal.H.C.).
6. The Presiding Officer upon a consideration of the facts of the case came to the conclusion that both the appeals preferred were highly belated and the challenge raised to two separate orders dated 19.10.2015 and 22.05.2017 by means of a single appeal was not permissible and further that legality of the three notices could not be examined in the appeal. Accordingly, it came to the conclusion that neither the appeal could be admitted nor any relief could be granted and the appeal was disposed vide order dated 04.02.2019. Aggrieved against the aforementioned order, the present petition has been filed.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
8. The sole contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the dismissal of the appeal in terms of the order dated 04.02.2019, on the ground of delay is wholly illegal, and that the delay in filing of the appeal ought to have been condoned in the interest of justice.
9. Counsel appearing for the respondent no. 2 APFC has supported the order passed in appeal by submitting that the levy of damages under Section 14B and interest under Section 7Q had been made after due notice and opportunity to the petitioner establishment and that the appeals being beyond the statutory period of limitation have rightly been rejected.
10. The sole ground which has been raised in the present writ petition is with regard to the question of limitation in filing of the appeal under the provisions of EPF Act.
11.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
