THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed seeking to set aside the order dated

02.01.2020 passed in I.A.No.130 of 2019 in USR No.750 of 2019 by the 2^nd respondent - Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal and to direct the 2^nd Respondent to receive the Appeal bearing USR No.750 of 2019 filed against the order of the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, EPFO, Patancheru, Sanga Reddy District vide TS/PTC/39406/7Q/Order/372 and TS/ PTC/39406/14B/Order/371.

2. Heard Sri N. Sreedhar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for TGSPDCL for the petitioner and Sri G.Venkateswarlu, learned Standing Counsel for E.P.F.O. for respondent No.1. Perused the record.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner company was established by the Government of Telangana to distribute electricity, engaged contractors for certain works, who in turn employed workers. As per agreements, the petitioner paid wages and provident fund amounts to the contractors, who were responsible for remitting them to the Provident Fund Commissioner. Earlier, under Section 7A of the EPF Act, the Provident Fund Commissioner vide order dated 25.02.2008 ordered the petitioner Company to pay Rs.5,14,398/- for the period from April, 2003 to December, 2005. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner Company filed an appeal before the EPF Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi bearing Appeal No.472 (1)/2008 and the same was allowed vide common order dated 23.04.2008 in APA Nos.471, 472 and 473(1)/2008 by quashing the order dated 25.02.2008 passed by the PF Commissioner. Despite this, the PF authorities reopened the case and issued fresh summons and orders in 2016 - 2017, demanding Rs.2,56,817/- (interest under Section 7Q) and Rs.5,89,178/- (penal damages under Section 14B), and directly debited Rs.8,45,995/- from the petitioner’s bank account without prior notice. The petitioner filed an appeal on 12.06.2018 but, due to delay, also filed a condonation petition under Section 7-I(2) of the EPF Act and Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The 2nd respondent dismissed the condonation petition on 02.01.2020 without considering the reasons for the delay and wrongly held that no petition under the Limitation Act was filed. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. It is submitted that the 2^nd respondent’s order is against the law and the EPF Act, as it ignores the Tribunal’s earlier order quashing the 2008 proceedings. Reviving those proceedings violates res judicata. The delay petition was dismissed without reasons, notice, or hearing, breaching natural justice and is liable to be set aside.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents submit that, under Rule 7 of the Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1997, an appeal must be filed within 60 days, with an additional 60 days available for condonation if sufficient cause is shown, making a total of 120 days, but the present appeal was filed well beyond the maximum permissible period. He relied on case of Commissioner of Custom and Central Excise Vs. Hango Indian Pvt. Ltd1, wherein it is stated that in the absence of any clause to condone the delay by showing sufficient cause after the prescribed period there is complete exclusion of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. In this case, since the appeal was filed after expiry of the Limitation period of 611 days excluding the statutory period of 60 + 60 days, the same is not maintainable. Hence, the Tribunal rightly dismissed the condone delay petition.

5. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents relied on the Judgment dated 08.11.2021 passed by this Court in Writ Appeal

1 2009 Vol.5 SSC page 791

No.539 of 2008, wherein the operative portion in the said order is as follows:

“The statutory provisions governing the field as contained under Rule 7 of the Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1997, are reproduced as under:

“Fee, time for filing appeal, deposit of amount due on filing appeal-

(1) Every appeal filed with the Registry shall be accompanied by a fee of two thou