High Court dismissed the petitioner's writ petition as inordinate delay alone precluded hearing, without opining on merits or establishing non-receipt of the 2002 order.
No relief; petition dismissed as inordinate delay of about 20 years precludes airing grievances before TL.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WPL No. 83 of 2022
---- Petitioner
Versus
---- Respondents
| For Petitioner | : Mr. S. P. Kale, Advocate. |
|---|---|
| For Respondents | : Mr. Sunil Pillai, Advocate. |
Hon'ble Shri Justice N. K. Chandravanshi
Order On Board
02.08.2023
2
illegally and arbitrarily have made applicable provisions of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1952’) vide impugned order dated 26.06.2002 (Annexure-P/1), whereas the petitioner has never engaged 20 or more employees ever. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that impugned order (Annexure-P/1) has never been conveyed to the petitioner, therefore, he could not file appeal against that order under Section 7-I of the Act of 1952. It is submitted that said order was supplied by respondents only after the order dated 03.05.2023 was passed by this Court in WPL No.31/2021. It is further contended that impugned order has been passed not only under Section 7-A of the Act of 1952, but it has been passed under Section 7-Q of the Act of 1952 also, hence this petition may be heard.
3
that if copy of the impugned order was not supplied to the petitioner, then by filing application (Annexure-P/5) dated 08.09.2002, he would have sought copy of the order and could have filed appeal, but such act was not done by him and after passing of 20 years, this issue has been raised. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that issue with regard to Section 7-Q of the Act of 1952 has been resolved by the coordinate Bench of this Court by dismissing the WPL No.31/2021 vide order dated 03.05.2023, which has been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in WA No.289/2023 vide order dated 05.07.2023, therefore, this petition is liable to be dismissed.
[7- I. Appeals to Tribunal. - (1) Any person aggrieved by a notification issued by the Central Government, or an order passed by the Central Government or any authority, under the proviso to sub-section (3), or sub-section (4) of section 1, or section 3, or sub-section (1) of section 7A, or section 7B [except an order rejecting an application for review referred to in sub-section (5) thereof], or section 7C, or section 14B, may prefer an appeal to a Tribunal against such notification or order.
(2) Every appeal under sub-section (1) shall be filed in such form and manner, within such time and be accompanied by such fees, as may be prescribed.]
4
7. Fee time for filing appeal, deposit of amount due on filing a appeal-[ (1) Every appeal filed with the Registrar shall be accompanied by a fee of two thousand rupees to be remitted in the form of crossed demand draft on a nationalized bank in favour of the Registrar of the Tribunal and payable at the main branch of that bank at the station where the seat of the said Tribunal is situated.]
(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:
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:
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:
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.
5
6
Sd/- (N. K. Chandravanshi) Judge
Deepti Jha
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ petition filed 20 years after the impugned order under Section 7-A of the EPF Act can be entertained.
Whether the petitioner's claim of non-receipt of impugned order makes the belated challenge admissible.
Whether exhaustion of the statutory appeal remedy under Section 7-I was required before filing the writ petition.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Saraswati Shishu Mandir Yadunandan Nagar
Employees Provident Fund Organisation
N. K. Chandravanshi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
