Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J.
Sahara Prime City Limited Thru. Its authorized Representative/ Director Sri Swapan Ghosh - Petitioner
Vs.
The Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal And Others - Respondent
Writ - C No. - 4810 of 2024
Decided On : 20-06-2024
LIMITATION - Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 - Section 7-I, Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 - The court discussed the limitation period for filing appeals under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, specifically focusing on Section 7-I, which prescribes a limitation of 120 days for appeals. The court interpreted the applicability of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, which allows for the exclusion of time spent in bona fide proceedings in a court without jurisdiction. The court emphasized the importance of considering the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the ability to file appeals and the need for the appellate tribunal to function effectively. This legal framework influenced the court's decision to remand the case back to the appellate tribunal for a fresh hearing on the merits, rather than dismissing it on technical grounds of limitation.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, Sahara Prime City Ltd., challenged the appellate tribunal's order dismissing its appeal as time-barred under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. The appeal was against an assessment order made by the EPFO, which the petitioner claimed was filed within the statutory period but was hindered by the non-functioning of the appellate tribunal due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellate tribunal's dismissal of the appeal on the grounds of limitation was unwarranted. It recognized that the petitioner had made efforts to file the appeal within the prescribed time but was unable to do so due to the tribunal's non-functioning and the extraordinary circumstances of the pandemic. The court emphasized the need to allow the appeal to be heard on its merits.
Issues: Whether the appeal filed by the petitioner was barred by limitation, considering the circumstances surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic and the non-functioning of the appellate tribunal.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, as the petitioner was engaged in bona fide proceedings before a court that lacked jurisdiction. The court also highlighted the need for judicial bodies to prioritize the resolution of disputes on their merits rather than dismissing them on technical grounds.
Final Decision: The court set aside the appellate tribunal's order dismissing the appeal on the grounds of limitation and remanded the case back to the appellate tribunal for a fresh hearing on the merits.
JUDGMENT :
Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J.
1. Heard Shri Amrendra Nath Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner assisted by Shri Rahul Tripathi and Shri Nirmit Srivastava, learned counsels for the petitioner and Shri Akhilesh Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 3.
2. There is no need to issue notice to the opposite party no.1 as the opposite party no.1 is an appellate Tribunal.
3. By means of this petition, the petitioner has prayed following main relief(s):-
(II.) A writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the assessment order dated 30.03.2021 along with its corrigendum dated 31.03.2021 passed by Opposite Party No. 3, as contained in Annexure No. 2 to the petition.”
4. At the very outset, Shri Tripathi has drawn attention of this Court towards SA-1 of the supplementary affidavit filed on 18.6.2024, which is the show cause notice, before issue of arrest warrant under Form No. CP- 25 dated 31.5.2024, issued by the Recovery Officer, Regional Office, Lucknow of Employees’ Provident Fund Organization.
5. Shri Tripathi has submitted that earlier the warrant was issued on 19.1.2024 but at that point of time, the order was reserved by the appellate Tribunal in Appeal No. 18 of 2023 (Sahara Prime City Limited vs. CBT & others) and also in Appeal No. 20 of 2023 (Sahara Net Corp. Limited vs. CBT & another), therefore, after passing the impugned appellate order in both the Appeals on 18.4.2024, that warrant has lost its efficacy.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has, precisely, assailed the impugned judgement and order dated 18.4.2024 passed by the Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No. 18 of 2023 in re: Sahara Prime City Ltd. Vs. Central Board of Trustees, (EPFO) and others on the ground that the aforesaid appellate order has been passed solely on the ground that the appeal filed by the appellant is barred by the period of limitation, as provided under Rule 7(2) of the Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1997. Notably, the appeal had been filed challenging the orders dated 30.3.2021 and its corrigendum order dated 31.3.2021 passed by the opposite party no.3, Assessing Officer/Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II/EPFO, Lucknow. Undisputedly, the period of limitation to file an appeal is 60 days and further extended period is 60 days, therefore, as per statutory prescription, the aforesaid appeal should have been filed on or before 31.7.2021.
7. To clarify the controversy in hand, Shri Tripathi has drawn attention of this Court towards Annexure Nos. 24 and 25 which are the orders dated 03.06.2021 and 04.06.2021 respectively passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Misc. Bench No. 11379 of 2021.
8. For the convenience, the aforesaid orders dated 03.06.2021 and 04.06.2021 respectively are being reproduced hereunder:-
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri Akhilesh Pratap Singh, learned counsel appearing for opposite party Nos.2 to 4.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on the basis of impugned recovery certificate the opposite parties are pressing hard to recover the alleged outstanding amount, although the petitioner has already preferred an appeal under Section 7-I of Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (in short "CGIT") against the order dated 23.03.2021, pursuant to which recovery proceedings have been initiated, alongwith an application for waiver of the deposit. In appeal interim relief has also been sought. It is also stated that learned Tribunal is not functional at present as there is no Presiding Officer.
Learned counsel for the opposite party Nos.2 to 4 may seek instruction
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
