Nagpur Municipal Corporation, through Its Municipal Commissioner, Nagpur Vs the Regional Provident Funds Commissioner, Nagpur - 1 and Another — Bombay HC (2025)

wp 5411.24.odt

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

Writ Petition No.5411/2024 Nagpur Municipal Corporation, Nagpur V Regional Provident Funds Commissioner, Nagpur-I and another

¶5

- - - - ------------------------Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders

¶6

- - - - ---------------------------- Mr. S.N. Bhattad, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. R.K. Maheshwari, Advocate for resp. no.1.

¶7

CORAM : PRAFULLA S. KHUBALKAR, J.

¶8

 DATE: 20-11-2025.

¶9

Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as

¶10

learned counsel for respondent no.1. Nobody appears for respondent
no.2 although served.

¶11

2.Petitioner Corporation has filed the instant petition
challenging the order dated 23-02-2024 passed by respondent no.1,
under Section 14B of the Employees Provident Funds and
Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short, the said 'Act'). The
petitioner has also made an alternate prayer, which is reproduced
below :-

¶12

"In alternate-

¶13

d. Direct the respondent No.2 to accept the filing of
statutory appeal and waiver application (Annexure-C &
E) preferred by the Petitioner in the interest of justice,
and further be pleased to;

¶14

e. Grant any other relief or order, which this Hon'ble
Court may deem to be fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case."

¶15

2 wp 5411.24.odt

¶16

3.The petitioner's primary contention is that, for
challenging order dated 23-02-2024 passed by respondent no.1 the
petitioner Corporation desired to file appeal under Section 7(I) of
the said Act and accordingly the memorandum of appeal along with
the necessary demand draft and application for grant of waiver was
tried to be filed before respondent no.2/Registrar of Employees
Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, Nagpur. It is submitted that
respondent no.2 refused to accept the filing of appeal only on the
pretext of the appeal being filed beyond the limitation period
prescribed by law. It is submitted that since the statutory appeal was
not allowed to be filed by respondent no.2, the petitioner is
constrained to approach this Court by way of instant petition and
has also challenged the order dated 23-02-2024.

¶17

4.Having regard to the limited controversy involved, it has
to be seen whether the action of respondent no.2 refusing to accept
the filing of the statutory appeal is justified. The provisions of
Section 7(i) of the Act provides for an appeal to be filed by the
aggrieved party against an order awarding damages under Section
14B of the Act, to the Employees Provident Fund Appellate
Tribunal. Although there is a limitation provided for filing this
statutory appeal, the issue as to whether the appeal is within time or

¶18

it is beyond limitation period and whether it is required to be
considered on merits is the domain of the Tribunal. The primary

¶19

3 wp 5411.24.odt

¶20

contention of the petitioner Corporation is that the Registrar ought
to have allowed the filing of appeal so that the contentions of the
appellant on merits as well as for seeking condonation of delay by
pointing out any sufficient cause could have been adjudicated by the
Tribunal. Restraining the petitioner from filing the appeal is
depriving the petitioner from exhausting the remedy of statutory
appeal.

¶21

5.Despite service of notice of the instant petition, nobody
appears on behalf of respondent no.2. The contentions canvassed by
the petitioner in this regard particularly in paragraph 5 and ground
no.8 demonstrating the refusal of filing of appeal by respondent
no.2 remained uncontroverted.

¶22

6.Considering the fact that the petitioner Corporation is
deprived from filing the statutory appeal, it is clear that the
petitioner's statutory appeal is itself not registered and there is no
adjudication on merits by the Tribunal.

¶23

Having regard to these aspects, in the interest of justice,
it is necessary to direct respondent no.2 to accept filing of statutory
appeal along with applications filed by the petitioners so that the
application for condonation of delay is registered and taken up by
the Tribunal for adjudication.

¶24

7.In view of the aforesaid petitioner is permitted to file
statutory appeal alongwith an application for condonation of delay,

¶25

4 wp 5411.24.odt

¶26

if any, and fresh demand draft within a period of 15 days. If the
petitioner presents the appeal with the necessary applications
within a period of 15 days from the date of uploading of this order,
respondent no.2 is directed to firstly register the application for
condonation of delay, if any, and then the matter be directed to be
listed as per the procedure.

¶27

8.It is clarified that this petition is decided only by
considering the grievance about refusal of filing of statutory appeal
of the petitioner Corporation and all the contentions raised by the
parties on merits are kept open.

¶28

9.In view of this, writ petition is allowed and disposed of.

¶29

 (Prafulla S. Khubalkar, J.)

¶30

Deshmukh

Nagpur Municipal Corporation, through Its Municipal Commissioner, Nagpur v. the Regional Provident Funds Commissioner, Nagpur - 1 and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nagpur Municipal Corporation, through Its Municipal Commissioner, Nagpur v. the Regional Provident Funds Commissioner, Nagpur - 1 and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Wasudeo Sitaram Kale Vs Devendra Surajmal Katariya and Another

Deorao Sambha Pahanpate vs Shalikram Mahadeo Bhoskar and Others

Smt. Lalita W/O. Ramesh Jaiswal and Another vs the State of Maharashtra, Department of Home and Excise, Thr. Secretary, Mumbai and Ors.

M/S. Kay Ess Hire Purchase (P) Ltd., Thr. Director, Gurmeet Sing S/O Kuljit Singh Nayyar Vs Shri Nagpur Gujrati Bramha Samaj, Thr. President, Ashokbhai v. Trivedi and Others

Smt. Nirmala Bichmaiyya Kulmethe and Others vs the Additional Commissioner, Nagpur Division, Nagpur and Ors.

Harshal S/O Madhukar Khakse vs Sanjiwani W/O Harshal Khakse