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 filing appeal, deposit of amount due on filing appeal-

(2) Any person aggrieved by a notification issued by the Central Government or an order passed by the Central Government or any other authority under the Act, may within 60 days from the date of issue of the notification/order, prefer an appeal to the Tribunal.

Provided that the Tribunal may if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal within the prescribed period, extend the said period by a further period of 60 days:

Provided further that no appeal by the employer shall be entertained by a Tribunal unless he has deposited with the Tribunal (a Demand Draft payable in the Fund and bearing) 75 per cent of the amount due from him as determined under Section 7-A:

Provided also that the Tribunal may for reasons to be recorded in writing, waive or reduce the amount to be deposited under Section 7-O.”

4. The petitioner did not file the appeal within the time prescribed by the aforesaid Rule. He had filed Writ-C No. 8978 of 2023 challenging the aforesaid order dated 31.03.2023 and the writ petition was dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative remedy of filing the appeal and it was provided in the order that in case the petitioner files an appeal within a period of 15 days, the same shall be decided on its merits and shall not be rejected on the ground of delay.

5. The time of 15 days granted by this court expired on 31.10.2023. The petitioner did not file the appeal within the extended time granted by this Court and he filed the appeal on 07.11.2023.

6. The Central Government Industrial Tribunal dismissed the appeal holding that the appeal was not filed even within the extended time granted by this Court and it had been filed belatedly and the Tribunal has no power to condone any delay beyond 60 days.

7. The Tribunal has relied upon numerous judgments on the point.

8. In Kushang Security and House Keeping Private Limited v. Central Government Industrial, 2019 SCC OnLine All 3080, a coordinate Bench of this Court has dealt with this issue and after discussing numerous precedents on the issue, as held that: -

“32. In view of the foregoing discussion, the legal position which emerges that in terms of Section 7-I (2) every appeal is to be filed in such form and manner, within such time and be accompanied by such fees, as may be prescribed. Rule 7 (2) of the Rules, 1997 provides for filing of the appeal within 60 days from the date of issuance of the order. The first proviso thereunder further stipulates that the Tribunal may, if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal within the prescribed period, extend the said period by a further period of 60 days.

33. It is thus seen that the EPF Act is a