JUDGMENT :

Subhash Vidyarthi, J.

1. Heard Sri Jai Narayan Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri S. K. Khare, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel and Sri Akhilesh Pratap Singh, the learned counsel for the Respondents No. 1 to 4.

2. By means of the instant writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the validity of an order dated 04.03.2024 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/EPFAT, Lucknow in Appeal No. 67 of 2023, whereby the appeal has been dismissed as being barred by the period of limitation as provided under Section 7(2) of the Employees’ Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1997, which was filed by the petitioner against an order dated 31.03.2023 passed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Regional Office, Lucknow, under Section 7A of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act.

3. The provisions of limitation for filing an Appeal under Section 7A of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act is provided in Rule 7(2) of the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1997, which reads as under:-

“7. Fee, time for