THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION Nos.31413 of 2025 and 37788 of 2022

COMMON ORDER:

In view of the commonality of the issue and grievance, these Writ Petitions are analogously heard and taken up for disposal by way of this common order. For the sake of convenience, the facts in W.P.No.31413 of 2025 are taken as reference.

2. The Writ Petition No.31413 of 2025 is filed seeking to set aside the order dated 02.01.2020 passed in I.A.No.131 of 2019 in USR No.751 of 2019 by the 2nd respondent - Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal and to direct the 2nd Respondent to receive the Appeal bearing USR No.751 of 2019 filed against the order of the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, EPFO, Patancheru, Sanga Reddy District vide TS/PTC/39408/7Q/Order/374 and TS/PTC/39408/14B/ Order/373.

3. The Writ Petition No.37788 of 2022 is filed seeking to set aside the order dated 02.01.2020 passed in I.A.No.132 of 2019 in USR No.752 of 2019 by the 2nd respondent - Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal and to direct the 2nd Respondent to receive the Appeal bearing USR No.752 of 2019 filed against the order of the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, EPFO, Patancheru, Sanga Reddy District vide TS/PTC/39407/14B Order/369 and TS/PTC/39407/7Q Order/370.

4. 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 in W.P.No.31413 of 2025 and Sri R.Vinod Reddy, learned Standing counsel for TGSPDCL, for the petitioner and Sri B.Manoj Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.1 in E.P.F.O in W.P.No.37788 of 2022. Perused the record.

5. Learned counsel for petitioner in W.P.No.31413 of 2025 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.16,20,033 /- for the period from January 2003 to February, 2006. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner Company filed an appeal before the EPF Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi bearing Appeal No.473 (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.7,32,024/- (interest under Section 7Q) and Rs.15,91,104/- (penal charges under Section 14B), and directly debited Rs.23,23,128/- 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.

6. 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