Back
SUBODH ABHYANKAR
Kasturba Gandhi National Memorial Trust – Appellant
Versus
Regional Provident Fund Commissioner II Employees Provident Fund Organization – Respondent
ORDER :
Heard.
2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the orders dated 21.07.2022 and 24.05.2023 passed by the respondent No.1 Regional Provident Fund Commissioner under Section 7 A of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (herein after referred to as the 'Act of 1952'). Vide order dated 24.05.2023, the Provident Fund Commissioner has rejected the petitioner's application for review of the aforesaid order dated 21.07.2022. The review application has been rejected on the ground of limitation which is 45 days, from the date of the order.
3. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision rendered by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Mohammad Sagir Vs. Bharat Heavy Electricals and Ors. reported as 2004 (2) JLJ 183 wherein, this Court has held that if in a Special Act, the provisions of Limitation Act have not been specifically excluded, the Limitation Act would be applicable.
4. On due consideration of submissions and on perusal of the record, it is apparent that the application of review has been rejected only on the ground of limitation as the petition for review was filed
Judicial discretion to allow alternate remedies under statutory provisions while excluding limitation periods.
The court emphasized that review applications under the Act must afford an opportunity for hearing to the aggrieved party, reinforcing principles of natural justice.
The court cannot extend the statutory time limit for filing appeals under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, and the principles of natural justice were not violate....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that when a special Act itself provides for a limitation period and an extended period of limitation, the provisions of the Limitation Act cannot b....
A review application under Section 7B of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act requires adherence to specific criteria even after an appeal.
Authorities must adhere to principles of natural justice and provide opportunities for hearing in quasi-judicial proceedings, especially in review applications.
A review petition under Section 7B of the EPF & MP Act is not a de novo hearing; it requires the applicant to establish specific statutory grounds such as discovery of new evidence or error apparent ....
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
