The Limitation Act does not apply to quasi-judicial bodies, and the Appellate Authority cannot condone delay in the absence of specific provisions under the Employees State Insurance Act.

ORDER :

1. This petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed seeking the following relief(s) :-

(i) To issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 29-12-2023 (Annexure P/1) in the interest of justice.

(ii) To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondent authorities to reconsider the entire matter after affording the opportunity of hearing and the submissions put forthwith by the petitioner and pass speaking order.

(iii) To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the appeal after condoning the delay in filing the appeal and direction may be issued to the appellate authorities to consider the appeal preferred by the petitioner.

(iv) Any other order/orders, direction/directions which deems fit and proper may also be passed.

(v) Award cost of the litigation to the petitioner.

2. It is submitted by Counsel for the Petitioner that by order dated 21-11-2022 passed under Section 45A of the Employees State Insurance Act (In short Act), the authorities had assessed the liability of the Petitioner to the tune of Rs. 7,95,218 towards default contribution. Thereafter, another order dated 26-4-2023 was issued for recovery of Rs. 10,79,087/-and the Bank Account of the Petitioner maintained in respondent no.4/bank was also seized. The petitioner preferred a writ petition No. 25435/2023 which was disposed of by co-ordinate bench of this Court with a direction to the respondents to consider the appeal of the petitioner under Section 45AA of the Act after considering the application for condonation of delay.

3. However, by the impugned order, the Appellate Authority has rejected the application filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act, on the ground that the Appellate Authority has no jurisdiction to condone the delay.

4. Challenging the impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority, it is submitted by the Counsel for the Petitioner that since, the provisions of Limitation Act have not been excluded under the Act, therefore, in the light of Section 29(2) of Limitation Act, the Appellate Authority has jurisdiction to condone the delay.

5. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner.

6. The moot question for consideration is that in absence of any provision for condonation of delay under the Act, whether the Appellate Authority can condone the delay or not?

7. Section 29 of Limitation Act reads as under :

29. Savings.—(1) Nothing in this Act shall affect Section 25 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.

(2) Where any special or local law prescribes for any suit, appeal or application a period of limitation different from the period prescribed by the Schedule, the provisions of Section 3 shall apply as if such period were the period prescribed by the Schedule and for the purpose of determining any period of limitation prescribed for any suit, appeal or application by any special or local law, the provisions contained in Sections 4 to 24 (inclusive) shall apply only insofar as, and to the extent to which, they are not expressly excluded by such special or local law.

(3) Save as otherwise provided in any law for the time being in force with respect to marriage and divorce, nothing in this Act shall apply to any suit or other proceeding under any such law.

(4) Sections 25 and 26 and the definition of “easement” in Section 2 shall not apply to cases arising in the territories to which the Indian Easements Act, 1882, may for the time being extend.

8. From plain reading of Section 29(2) of Limitation Act, it is clear that it is applicable to Suit, Appeal or application to be filed before the Courts only and not before the Authorities or Tribunal. The Supreme Court in the case of M.P. Steel Corpn. v. CCE, reported in (2015) 7 SCC 58 has held as under :

25. It is clear that this judgment clearly laid down two things—one that authorities under the Sales Tax Act are not “courts” and thus, the Limitation Act will not apply to them. It also laid down that the language of