Timeliness and procedural compliance in filing appeals under the Employees Provident Fund Act are crucial, and failure to adequately pursue remedies nullifies claims for delay condonation.

JUDGMENT

Oorder dated 31.3.2022 of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Ernakulam dismissing Appeal No.9 of 2022 preferred by the management against the order dated 12.6.2018 of the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner assessing dues under Section 7A of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter called '1952 Act')

has been assailed in the present Writ Petition.

2. The petitioner is a partnership firm engaged in the construction business who has been issued registration certificate dated 17.9.2012 Ext.P1. The aforementioned establishment is covered under the provisions of 1952 Act with Code No.KR/KCH/29017 with effect from 16.10.2012. On 12.5.2016, the work site i.e., the District Hospital, Aluva was inspected by the Enforcement Officer of the EPF organisation and thereafter issued a letter directing the petitioner to produce books of accounts, etc. for the period from 2012-2013 to 2014-2015. According to the petitioner, documents as demanded by the Enforcement officer were submitted but thereafter received notice dated 13.12.2016 sending intimation that an enquiry under Section 7A of the Act has been initiated in respect of the dues for the period from 5/2006 to 5/2016. The petitioner raised objection against the calculation reflected in the report of the Inspector dated 7.6.2016 Ext.P4, pointing out that three out of the seven employees referred to in the inspection report were already enrolled and five employees were drawing wages in excess of Rs.15,000/- per month. The petitioner on 1.6.2018 was served with an order directing payment of Rs.4,99,553/-.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the aforementioned order was passed without taking into consideration that the establishment had commenced the operation only in the year 2012. Therefore, there is no question of assessing the non-payment of the contribution from May 2006 to May 2016. There has not been a serious exercise and application of mind as the books and documents have palpably been ignored. Since the statute permitted review under Section 7B it was preferred on 9.7.2018 against the order dated 1.6.2018. The Review Petition Ext.P7 was pursued by making request as evident from Ext.P8 dated 3.5.2019. But when no action was taken, the petitioner preferred an appeal bearing No.9 of 2022 which was dismissed as barred by limitation. As per the proviso to Rule 7(2)

of EPF Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1997, the limitation is 60 days from the date of the order and with a power to condone by another 60 days i.e., 120 days. The dismissal of the appeal is not sustainable in the eyes of law as there was no order passed in the review application. The petitioner had been pursuing the remedy and in the absence of any specific reply, was constrained to file the appeal in 2022. Therefore, the period spent in pursuing the review petition should be condoned by taking the aid of the provisions of Section 14 of the Limitation Act .

4. Counsel for the 1st respondent submits that the appeal was statutorily barred. There is no provision for condonation of delay. The explanation given in the appeal was not found to be justified as there was no proof of filing of the Review Petition. 5. I have heard the counsel for the parties and appraised the paper book. Rule 7(2) of the EPF Appellate Tribunal (Procedure)

Rules, 1997 reads thus :

“(2) Any person aggrieved by a notification issued by the Central Government or an order passed by the Central Government or any other authority under the Act, may within 60 days from the date of issue of the notification/order, prefer an appeal to the Tribunal.

Provided that the Tribunal may if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal within the prescribed period, extend the said period by a further period of 60 days.”

6. On perusal of the same, it is evident that the appeal has to be filed within 60 days wit