JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Pradip Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Mata Prasad, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the first respondent, Sri Brijesh Kumar, learned counsel for the second respondent and Sri Jagdish Pathak, learned counsel appearing for the third respondent.

2. The present writ petition has been filed seeking to assail the order dated 28.12.2019 passed by the third respondent/Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner Regional Office, Meerut in proceedings under Section 7-A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952[the EPF Act, 1952] and also the order dated 15.07.2019 passed by the fourth respondent/Presiding Officer Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Kanpur whereunder the appeal filed thereagainst has been rejected on the ground of delay.

3. The records of the case reflect that in proceedings for assessment of dues for the period 08/2012 to 12/2012, under Section 7-A of the EPF Act, 1952, an order dated 28.12.2018 was passed determining an amount against the petitioners.

4. A writ petition, Writ-C No.5308 of 2019, was filed seeking quashing of the aforementioned order dated 28.12.2018 which was dismissed on 18.02.2019 with liberty to the petitioners to avail the statutory remedy of appeal. Thereafter, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the fourth respondent, registered as Appeal No.06 of 2019 which has been dismissed vide order dated 15.07.2019 on the ground that the appeal is barred by time and has been filed after "60 days + 60 days" from the date of passing of the order dated 28.12.2018.

5. Contention of the counsel for the petitioners is that the delay in filing of the appeal having been caused due to wrong advice of the counsel and lack of communication of the order dated 18.02.2019 passed by the High Court, the delay ought to have been condoned, and the Appellate Authority has illegally rejected the appeal on the ground of delay. It is also contended that the benefit of extension of prescribed period under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963[the Act, 1963] and of exclusion of time under Section 14 thereof, would be available to the petitioners and therefore the limitation in filing an appeal ought to have been extended.

6. Sri Jagdish Pathak, learned counsel appearing for the third respondent has submitted that as per the provisions of Section 7-I of the EPF Act, 1952 read with Rule 7 of the Employees' Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1997[the Rules, 1997] the limitation for filing of an appeal is 60 days from the date of issuance of the order with a further discretion to the Tribunal to extend the prescribed period by a further time period of 60 days upon recording its satisfaction that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring appeal within the prescribed period. It is submitted that the maximum period for filing of the appeal is "60 days + 60 days" from the date of issuance of the order and there is no power conferred on the Appellate Authority to condone the delay beyond the said time period.

7. The question which thus falls for consideration is as to whether the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 would be applicable so as to extend the period of limitation prescribed for filing an appeal under Section 7-I of the EPF Act, 1952 read with Rule 7 of the Rules, 1997 which provides for a period of 60 days for filing an appeal with a provision for extension of the said time period by a further period of 60 days.

8. In order to appreciate the rival contentions the relevant statutory provision with regard to filing of appeal under Section 7-I of the EPF Act, 1952 may be adverted to:

"7-I. Appeals to Tribunal.—(1) Any person aggrieved by a notification issued by the Central Government, or an order passed by the Central Government or any authority, under the proviso to subsection (3), or subsection (4), of Section 1, or Section 3, or subsection (1) of Section 7-A, or Section 7-B(except an o