SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 53530

HIGH COURT OF KERALA
AMIT RAWAL, J
M/S. SATHYADHARA COMMUNICATIONS (P) LTD. – Appellant
Versus
THE CENTRAL BOARD OF TRUSTEES, EPFO – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Order Ext.P2 dated 16.3.2021 dismissing the appeal on account of limitation preferred under Section 7(i) of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act has been assailed.

2. The order of assessment Ext.P1 dated 11.10.2019 passed under Section 14B of the 1952 Act with regard to the damages of Rs.60000/- and odd amount was not complied with necessitating the petitioner to file an appeal. The appeal aforementioned was filed on 19.1.2021 whereas the limitation as per Rule 7 of the EPF Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules 1997 is 60 days and another 60 days; total 120 days. 120 days expired on 10.2.2020. However the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court for entertaining the appeal without raising the objection of limitation was passed on 15.3.2020. Thus according to the petitioner, there is delay of 34 days whereas the Appeal has been filed on 19.1.2021, almost 10 months thereafter.

3. Counsel for the first respondent Dr.Abraham P.Meachinkara has also raised the objection qua maintainability of the appeal as it was beyond the period of limitation.

I am afraid the aforementioned argument cannot be accepted as the Rule 7 would reveal that the limitation cannot be condo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top