M/S. Santek Equipment Pvt. Ltd. through Its Director Vs Regional Provident Fund Commissioner

Digitally signed by PRASHANT PRASHANT VILAS VILAS RANE RANE Date: 2021.09.22 20:52:33 +0530

PVR 16wp6961-18.docx

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.6961 OF 2018

¶6

M/s.Santek Equipment Pvt.Ltd.…Petitioner
vs.
Regional Provident Fund Commissioner.…Respondent

¶7

Mr.Kedar J..Patil with Ms.Gargi Joshi, for the Petitioner.

¶8

Mr.Suresh Kumar with Ms.Mohinee Chougule, for the Respondent.

¶9

---
C0RAM : G. S. KULKARNI, J.

¶10

DATE : SEPTEMBER 8, 2021

¶11

PC :

¶12

1.Challenge in this petition is to an order dated 17 February 2017
passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Employees Provident Fund
Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, (for short ‘the tribunal’) whereby the
petitioner’s appeal (ATA No.105(9)2017) along with the application for
condonation of delay stands rejected. The petitioner had approached
the Appellate Tribunal being aggrieved by an order dated 16 December
2015 passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Regional
Office, Pune, whereby the petitioner was directed to pay an amount of
Rs.891622/- and Rs.353/- as damages together with interest, in

¶13

¶14

PVR 16wp6961-18.docx

¶15

proceedings under Section 14B of the Employees Provident Funds and
Miscellaneous Provisions Act,1952.

¶16

2.Section 7-I of the Act provides for a remedy of an appeal to the
tribunal if a person is aggrieved by an order passed by the Regional
Provident Fund Commissioner under Section 14B of the Act. Rule 7 of
the Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1997 which provides for limitation in
filing an appeal under Section 7-I, reads thus:

¶17

“7. Fee, time for filing appeal, deposit of amount due on filing
appeal:

¶18

(1)

¶19

(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.

¶20

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.

¶21

Provided further that no appeal by the employer shall be
entertained by a Tribunal unless he has deposited with the Tribunal a
Demand Draft payable in the Fund and bearing 75 per cent of the
amount due from him as determined under section 7A;

¶22

Provided also that the Tribunal may for reasons to be recorded
in writing, waive or reduce the amount to be deposited under section
7-O.”

¶23

3. Thus as per the Rule 7(2) (supra), an appeal is required to be

¶24

filed within sixty days from the date of issuance of the order. Proviso to
sub-rule (2) ordains that the tribunal may, if it is satisfied that the
appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring an appeal,
within the prescribed period of 60 days, extend the said period by a

¶25

¶26

PVR 16wp6961-18.docx

¶27

further fixed period of 60 days. The second proviso below sub-rule (2)
provides that no appeal by the employer shall be entertained by a
tribunal unless he has deposited with the tribunal a demand draft
payable in the fund and bearing 75% of the amount due from him as
determined under Section 7A. The third proviso to sub-rule (2) provides
that the tribunal may for reasons to be recorded in writing, waive or
reduce the amount to be deposited under section 7-O.

¶28

4.In the present case, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner
passed an order dated 16 December 2015 observing that a period of
sixty days from receipt of the order and an extended period of sixty
days as provided for in Rule 7 (supra), only could have been condoned,
on the petitioner’s delay condonation application. The petitioner, in fact,
filed the appeal on 15 February 2017 which was after a period of more
than one year after the Commissioner passed the order on 16 December
2015. The tribunal accordingly dismissed the delay condonation
application alongwith the appeal.

¶29

5.Mr.Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel for the respondents would
submit that considering the period of delay, certainly the tribunal itself
did not have jurisdiction to condone any delay beyond the extended
period of sixty days as provided below the first proviso to sub-rule (2)
of Rule 7. He submits that the said provision is a self operative
inasmuch as any delay beyond the extended period of sixty days cannot

¶30

PVR 16wp6961-18.docx

¶31

be condoned, and hence, according to him, the order passed by the
tribunal did not warrant any interference. In support of his submission,
Mr.Suresh Kumar has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in
Writ Petition No.2101 OF 2014 (The Manganga Sahakari Sakhar
Karkhana Ltd. vs. The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner), dated 5
November 2014. He submits that such judgment has interpreted sub-
rule (2) of Rule 7 which holds that Appellate Tribunal can condone the
delay, provided it is of a maximum period of 60 days. It is also held that
the legislature specifically intended to exclude the power conferred
under section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone delay or to extend the
period of limitation beyond the period of 60 days.

¶32

6.It is thus clear that delay in the present case for the petitioner to
approach the tribunal, was admittedly beyond the period of sixty days
as provided in the second proviso to sub-rule (2) of Rule 7 of the
Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, hence, the delay could not have been
condoned.

¶33

7.In view of the clear position in law, the submission as urged by
Mr.Patil that the matter be remanded and delay be condoned by this
Court, cannot be accepted as this would be an exercise contrary to sub-
rule (2) of Rule 7 of the Tribunal (Procedure ) Rules. The petitioner

¶34

cannot expect this Court to pass orders contrary to the statutory
provisions.

¶35

¶36

PVR 16wp6961-18.docx

¶37

8.For the above reasons, I find no merit in the petition. It is
accordingly rejected.

¶38

9.Mr.Suresh Kumar at this stage submits that an amount of
Rs.10,26,314/- has been deposited by the petitioner in this Court in
pursuance of the order dated 30 April 2021, be permitted to be
withdrawn by the EPF Authorities. Learned Counsel for petitioner does
not have any objection. Accordingly, the respondents are permitted to
withdraw the said amount and utilize the same in accordance with law.

¶39

(G. S. KULKARNI, J.)

¶40

M/S. Santek Equipment Pvt. Ltd. through Its Director v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

M/S. Santek Equipment Pvt. Ltd. through Its Director v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohankumar Nandlal Chauhan Vs the State of Maharashtra through Secretary, Food and Civil Supplies Department and Ors.

F.N. Social, Educational Medical Charities Trust through Its Trustees Mr. L.S. Chinnappa and Anr. Vs Goel Ganga India Pvt. Ltd.through Its Director Mr Jayprakash Sitaram Goel and Ors.

M/S. Karia Builders Thr. Partner Vs Ms. Shobha Bhagde and Anr.

Mumbai Vidi- Tambakhu Vyapari Co-Op. Credit Soc. Ltd. (Mvtp) Vs Mrs. Bhagyashri Bhalchandra Khatu and Ors.

Prabhakar Jibhau Khairnar and Ors. Vs M/S. Premium Tools Pvt. Ltd. and Ors.

Abhijit Mohanrao Shingare and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.