IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Writ Petition (M/S) No. 552 of 2022

M/s Alpha India Private Limited

………. Petitioner

versus

Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner

......Respondents

Mr. Rohit Arora, learned counsel for the writ applicant.

Mr. Bhupendra Singh Bisht, learned counsel for the

respondent.

-----------

Judgement dated: 01.08.2022

Hon’ble Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, J.

Upon hearing the learned counsels, the Court made the

following Order.

1.

By filing this writ application, the petitioner,

which is a private limited company, has prayed

for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari

quashing the impugned order passed by the

respondent

on

14.03.2022

dismissing

his

application for review under Section 7B of the

Employment

Provident

Fund

and

Misc.

Provisions Act, 1952, (hereinafter referred as

‘the Act’).

2.

It is not disputed that the petitioner was issued

a notice by the respondent on 20.10.2021 with

regard to an inquiry conducted under Section

7A of the Act. The order was communicated to

2

the petitioner on 27^th October, 2021. On

17.11.2021, the petitioner filed an application

for review under Section 7B of the Act. On

14.03.2021, the respondent rejected the Review

Application observing as follows:

“The present application dated 17.11.2021

was filed by M/s Alpla India Pvt. Ltd., SIDCUL

Sitarganj,

Distt.

Udham

Singh

Nagar

(Uttarakhand)

principal

employer

for

the

establishment

M/s

Himalaya

Industrial

Services,

Sitarganj

before

the

Assistant

Provident Fund Commissioner, Regional Office,

Haldwani requesting therein to review the

matter, pass a reasoned & fresh speaking order

under Section 7B of the EPF & MP Act, 1952.

The competent authority has rejected the

application

as

necessary

condition

under

Section 7B of the EPF & MP Act and Para 79-A

of the EPF Scheme 1952 are not met by the

appellant for initiating hearing under Section

7B.

Hence, order U/s 7A dated 22.09.2021 be

complied by the establishment.”

3.

It is apparent from the record that this order

does not specify the reasons for which the

Review Application was rejected though it is

clear that the respondent has not considered

the grounds taken by the petitioner on merit.

4.

We have also perused the application for Review

filed under Section7B of the Act, wherein the

petitioner has taken several grounds seeking

3

review of the order earlier passed under Section

7A.

5.

However, it is further borne out from the record

i.e. Annexure-9 to the writ application, which

reveals that the Review Application has been

considered by the competent authority to be

time barred. It is settled now that by virtue of

the final order the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

WPPIL No. 03 of 2022 that from 15^th March,

2020 to 23^rd February, 2022, the running of

limitation shall remain stayed in all cases.

6.

Hence, the respondents committed an error in

holding that the application filed by the

petitioner under Section 7B of the Act is barred

by the limitation. In that view of the matter, the

writ application is allowed. The order dated

14.03.2022 is quashed.

7.

The matter is remanded back to the sole

respondent for re-adjudication according to law.

To obviate any further delay, the petitioner is

directed to appear before the respondent and

present before him the copy of this order on

22^nd August, 2022. On such an event, the

respondent shall restore the Review Application

and consider the matter afresh strictly on merit.

(S.K.Mishra, J.)

(Grant urgent copy of this order as per Rule)

Kaushal