Disposed¶10

M/S Somnath Pathak through Its Proprietor Somnath Pathak v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC21 Mar 2024WPC/532/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Jharkhand High Court, Rajesh Kumar J., 21.03.2024, W.P.(C) No.532 of 2023; EPF Act 1952 Section 7A order; appeal before CGIT-cum-Labour Court Dhanbad (I.T No.2/61/2022) rejected as time-barred; delay 10-11 days excused owing to COVID-19 pandemic; Apex Court limitation suspension 15.03.2020-28.02.2022; Glaxo Smith Kline (2020) 19 SCC 681 cited by respondents; matter remanded to appellate authority for fresh hearing on merits; petition disposed.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with the matter remitted to the appellate authority to pass a fresh order on the appeal after hearing the parties on merits, in light of the COVID-19 pandemic; pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. ¶10

M/S Somnath Pathak through Its Proprietor Somnath Pathak Vs the State of Jharkhand — Jharkhand HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶10

Issue for consideration

Whether, in view of the COVID-19 pandemic situation and the Apex Court's suspension of limitation from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022, the petitioner's appeal filed with a delay of 10 to 11 days should be heard on merits notwithstanding its rejection as time-barred.

¶24

Court's answer

Considering the COVID-19 pandemic situation and the fact that the order was passed during the pandemic period, the Court held that the petitioner's appeal should be heard on merit.

¶9

Ratio / Principle

The matter was remitted back to the appellate authority to pass a fresh order after hearing the parties, considering the merits of the case.

¶9

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (W.P.(C) No.532 of 2023, High Court of Jharkhand, Rajesh Kumar, J.) against (i) the order dated 29.07.2022 of the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Dhanbad in I.T No.2/61/2022 rejecting the petitioner's appeal, and (ii) the underlying order dated 10.01.2022 passed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (Compliance), Ranchi under Section 7A of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provision Act, 1952 after notice dated 26.02.2018. The appeal was filed on 07.07.2022 against the last date of 28.06.2022, a delay of 10 to 11 days. Invoking the COVID-19 pandemic and the Apex Court's suspension of limitation from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022, and noting respondents' reliance on Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada vrs. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Ltd, (2020) 19 SCC 681, the Court held the appeal deserved to be heard on merit and remitted the matter to the appellate authority for a fresh decision after hearing the parties; writ petition disposed.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P.(C) No.532 of 2023

¶3

¶4

M/s Somnath Pathak, having its registered office at Harindanga Bazar, P.S. Town Police Station, P.O. Pakur, through its proprietor Somnath Pathak

¶5

…. …. Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The State of Jharkhand

¶8

Employee’s Provident Fund Organization, through the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Ranchi

¶9

The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (Compliance), Regional Office, Ranchi

¶10

The Recovery Officer, Regional Office, Ranchi

¶11

State Bank of India, Pakur Main Branch, District Pakur, Jharkhand

¶12

…. …. Respondents

¶13

¶14

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

¶15

For the Petitioner	---- : Mrs. Aanya, Adv.
For the State	: Mr. Raunak Sahay, A.C to G.P.V
For the Respondent No.5	: Mr. Ranjan Kumar, Adv.
For the Respondent Nos.2 & 3	: Mr. Parth S.A. Swaroop Pati, Adv. ----

¶16

13/Dated: 21^st March, 2024

¶17

1. Heard the parties.

¶18

2. The present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 29.07.2022 (Annexure-3) passed by learned Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Dhanbad in I.T No.2/61/2022 and the order dated 10.01.2022 (Annexure-1) passed by the respondent No.3 i.e. the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (Compliance), Ranchi. The order dated 10.01.2022 is by the original authority passed under Section 7A of the Employee’s Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provision Act, 1952.

¶19

3. In the said proceeding, the petitioner has participated and an adverse order has been passed which has been challenged by filing an appeal in I.T No.2/61/2022, which has not been entertained and the same was rejected vide impugned order dated 29.07.2022.

¶20

4. From the arguments and pleadings of the parties, it appears that the notice has been issued to the petitioner in the said proceeding on 26.02.2018. The final order has been passed on 10.01.2022. The appeal was preferred on 07.07.2022. The last date for filing of the appeal was 28.06.2022. Thus, there is a delay of 10 to 11 days in filing the appeal.

¶21

5. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it was COVID-19 pandemic situation which was extraordinary and it was the reason for delay.

¶22

W.P.(C). No.532 of 2023

¶23

¶24

6. Considering the COVID-19 situation, even the limitation period has been stopped by the Hon’ble Apex Court for the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022.

¶25

7. On the above basis, submission has been advanced that the appeal should be heard on merit.

¶26

8. Learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the prayer and it has been submitted that it is non-considerable. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the Case of Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada & Ors vrs. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Ltd reported in (2020) 19 SCC 681 .

¶27

9. Considering the above facts of the present case especially the COVID-19 pandemic situation and the fact that the order has been passed during the pandemic period, this Court feels that the appeal of the petitioner should be heard on merit. Accordingly, the matter is remitted back to the appellate authority to pass a fresh order after hearing of the parties considering the merit of the case.

¶28

10. With the above observation and direction, this writ petition is hereby, disposed of.

¶29

11. In view of the disposal of the present writ petition, pending interlocutory application, if any, also stands disposed of.

¶30

(Rajesh Kumar, J.)

¶31

Raja/Uploaded

M/S Somnath Pathak through Its Proprietor Somnath Pathak v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Somnath Pathak through Its Proprietor Somnath Pathak v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rahul Gandhi Vs the State of Jharkhand

Chola Mandalam M S General Insurance Co. Ltd. through Its Branch Manager Vikash Shankar Vs Kumar Abhishek and Ors.

Kiran Shankar Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Jai Ram Singh Vs the State of Jharkhand

Rajeev Ranjan Sinha Vs the State of Jharkhand

Ashok Kumar Choubey Vs State of Jharkhand