Allowed

Sahara Net Corp Ltd. Thru. Its Authorized Representative Director Sri Gyanendra Mani Tripathi v. the Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal/ Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal Lko and 2 Others

Allahabad HC29 May 2024WRIC/4805/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging dismissal of an Employees Provident Fund appellate tribunal appeal as time-barred. Following an earlier Allahabad High Court order of 20.06.2024 granting identical relief to another assessee, the court allowed the petition, set aside the limitation-based rejection and remanded the appeal for decision on merits.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 18.04.2024 set aside; appeal No.20 of 2023 remanded to the Appellate Tribunal at Lucknow to decide afresh on merits.

Sahara Net Corp Ltd. Thru. Its Authorized… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:71125

¶2

Court No. - 7

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 4805 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Sahara Net Corp Ltd. Thru. Its Authorized Representative Director Sri Gyanendra Mani Tripathi Respondent :- The Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal/ Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal Lko And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Nirmit Srivastava,Aakchad Nath,Amrendra Nath Tripathi,Chandra Kant Rai,Rahul Tripathi,Ram Sajan Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- Akhilesh Pratap Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

¶6

Heard Shri Amrendra Nath Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner assisted by Shri Akash Mishra and Shri Sharda Mohan Tiwari, learned counsels for the petitioner and Shri Akhilesh Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 3.

¶7

There is no need to issue notice to the opposite party no.1 as the opposite party no.1 is an appellate Tribunal.

¶8

By means of this petition, the petitioner has prayed following main relief(s):-

¶9

"(I.) To issue a writ of certiorari quashing/setting aside the impugned judgment/order dated 18.04.2024 passed by the Opposite Party No. 1 in appeal No.20 of 2023 in Re: Sahara Prime City Ltd. Vs. Central Board of Trustees, (EPFO) and Ors, as contained in Annexure No. P-1.

¶10

(II.) A writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the assessment order dated 5.4.2021 passed by Opposite Party No.3, as contained in Annexure No. P-2 to the petition."

¶11

It is argued on behalf of the petitioner that the two appeals were filed against the same assessment order. The said two appeals were clubbed together and were dismissed as barred by limitation by means of the same order against which the petitioner alongwith other assessees had challenged by approaching the Delhi High Court. The said two writ petitions filed by the petitioner and by the second assesses were

¶12

entertained by the Delhi High court, however when the appellate forum was available, Delhi High Court relegated the matter to the appellate forum. The appellate authority it is informed that once again dismissed the appeal for want of limitation without giving the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act as allegedly claimed by the petitioner.

¶13

It is argued that the said second assesses had approached this court by filing writ petition no.4810 of 2024 which was ultimately allowed by this Court vide order dated 20.6.2024.

¶14

In sum and substance, the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that apart from the dates as above, everything is similar and the benefit of order dated 20.6.2024 may be extended to the present petitioner also.

¶15

Learned counsel for the respondent tried to argue that when the judgement dated 20.6.2024, no counter affidavit was filed by the respondents whereas in the present case, counter affidavit has already been filed and in particular, he argued that benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act should not be given to the petitioner as he was not the bona fide pursuing his remedy. He however fairly states that the judgement dated 20.6.2024 has not yet been challenged before any forum.

¶16

Considering the fact that all the issues as have been raised in this writ petition were dealt with in the judgement dated 20.6.2024 passed by this Court in Writ Petition N. Writ C- No.4810 of 2024 and the limitation to challenge the said judgement has also come to an end and in view of the admission of learned counsel for the respondent that the said judgement has not been challenged before any forum, I do not any reason to deprive the petitioner for grant of same relief in this writ petition.

¶17

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances as considered and discussed above, the judgements of the Apex Court as considered above as well as the relevant statutory provisions, the impugned order dated 18.4.2024 passed by

¶18

the appellate Tribunal, whereby the appeal of the petitioner has been dismissed being barred by the period of limitation is unwarranted and uncalled for. The appeal No.20 of 2023 (Sahara Prime City Limited vs. CBT & others) is hereby remanded back to the Appellate Tribunal at Lucknow to pass a fresh order strictly in accordance with law.

¶19

While adjudicating/deciding the aforesaid appeal of the petitioner on merits, the Appellate Tribunal may not influence from any observations of the order of this Court inasmuch as this order is only confined to the effect that the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed on the ground of being barred by the period of limitation, therefore, the appellate Tribunal shall decide the aforesaid appeal on merits strictly in accordance with law by affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned with expedition. It is needless to say that if the petitioner files an application for interim relief before the appellate Tribunal, the same may heard and disposed of with expedition strictly in accordance with law.

¶20

In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed.

¶21

No order as to costs.

¶22

Order Date :- 22.10.2024

¶23

Shukla

¶24

Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH KUMAR SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Sahara Net Corp Ltd. Thru. Its Authorized Representative Director Sri Gyanendra Mani Tripathi v. the Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal/ Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal Lko and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sahara Net Corp Ltd. Thru. Its Authorized Representative Director Sri Gyanendra Mani Tripathi v. the Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal/ Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal Lko and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mohd. Sarik Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Vikas Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Alok Kumar Mitra Vs Union of India and Another

Sachendra Srivastava @ Pusu vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Smt. Priyanka Singh vs Sujeet Kumar Singh

Ashish Kumar Srivastava @ Ashish Srivastava vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.