Back
2022 Supreme(MP) 1331
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J.
Municipal Corporation Durg – Appellant
Versus
Employees Provident Fund Organization – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 27754 of 2022
Decided On : 05-12-2022
Important Points
Subject
Civil Law - Administrative Law
Act Referred
EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUNDS ACT : S.7(i)
Headnote
Condonation of Delay - Employees Provident Fund Act 1952 - The court condoned the delay in filing the appeal under Section 7-I of the Employees Provident Fund Act 1952, despite the tribunal's lack of power to condone the delay beyond 120 days, in the interest of justice.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the validity of the order rejecting the condonation of delay in filing the appeal under Section 7-I of the Employees Provident Fund Act 1952.
Finding of the Court:
The court considered the delay, the reasons for rejection, and the interest of justice, and decided to condone the delay and restore the appeal, subject to payment of costs.
Issues: Validity of the order rejecting condonation of delay, power of the tribunal to condone delay beyond 120 days.
Ratio Decidendi: The court exercised its discretion in the interest of justice to condone the delay, despite the tribunal's lack of power to do so beyond 120 days.
Final Decision: The delay in filing the appeal was condoned, and the appeal was restored, subject to payment of costs.
Aditya Ahiwasi, Advocate, J.K. Pillai, Advocate
Final Result : Disposed Of
JUDGMENT
Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J. - In the instant petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has called in question the validity of the order dated 11.11.2022 passed by Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum EPF Appellate Tribunal, Jabalpur, whereby the application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal under Section 7-I of the Employees Provident Fund Act 1952 filed by the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that the Tribunal has no power to condone the delay beyond 120 days.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is delay of near about two months and the delay has already been explained. The only reason for rejection is that the tribunal has no power. In such a situation, in the interest of justice, delay needs to be condoned for the reasons mentioned in the application.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent opposed the prayer and submitted that the petition deserves to be dismissed.
4. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in the interest of justice, the delay occurred in filing the appeal before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum EPF Appellate Tribunal, Jabalpur, is hereby condoned and appeal is restored subject to payment of cost of Rs.1000/- (Rupees One Thousand) before the respondent within fifteen days from today.
5. The Tribunal is directed to hear the appeal on merits subject to compliance of the aforesaid direction.
6. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
7. With the aforesaid, the instant writ petition stands disposed of.
