The Court dismissed the writ petition. It held that specific limitation rules under EPF Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1997 exclude the Limitation Act, 1963. The appeal's 375-day delay was not condonable. Petitioner was allowed to pay the liability in 12 instalments.
Payment of assessed damages permitted in 12 equal monthly instalments.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 11TH KARTHIKA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 16572 OF 2020
PETITIONER:
DR. MENONS NURSING HOME,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETRIX DR.NAYANTHARA,
OLAVAKKODE, PALAKKAD-678 002.
BY ADVS.
V.N.HARIDAS
SMT.SIBY.P.JOSE
SRI.K.T.BOSCO
RESPONDENTS:
1THE CENTRAL BOARD OF TRUSTEES,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND,
BHAVIZHANIDHI BHAVAN, 14, BHIKAJI CAMA PLACE,
NEW DELHI-110 066
2EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION,
REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND
COMMISSIONER, BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, ERANHIPALAM.P.O,
KOZHIKODE 673 006
3 CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT REP BY ITS PRESIDING OFFICER, MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND LABOUR, 38/377, A-2, KATITHALA LANE, KARSHAK ROAD, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-682 623.BY ADV DR.ABRAHAM P.MEACHINKARA, SC, EPF ORG.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
02.11.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO. 16572 OF 2020 -2-
JUDGMENT
The present writ petition has been filed against the order of the appellate authority dated 19.12.2019 rendered in Appeal No.774/2019 preferred against the order of assessing authority dated 18.09.2018 assessing damages under Section 14B of the EPF and MP Act, 1952 on account of belated remittance of provident fund contribution for the period from 03/2015 to 09/2017 by assessing the damages to the tune of Rs.4,55,133/(Rupees Four lakh fifty five thousand one hundred and thirty three only).
WP(C) NO. 16572 OF 2020 -3-
vide order dated 18.09.2018 assessed the damages to the tune of Rs.4,55,133/-. It is submitted that the interest assessed under Section 7Q has been paid. Petitioner had made all arrangements to prefer the appeal on time but unfortunately the Chief Executive Officer Mr.Sivadas expired on 18.09.2018 the day when the order was passed. Neither the office staff nor the succeeding officer noticed that the appeal is yet to be filed and the appeal was filed immediately on retrieving the file. Thus there occurred a delay of 375 days whereas as per Rule 7(2) of the EPF Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1997, the appeal has to be filed within sixty(60) days subject to further condonation of sixty days, total 120 days. The appeal was numbered as 774/2019 and tried but has been dismissed. In fact there was no mens rea on the part of the petitioner in not making the contribution and therefore the damages could not have been assessed to the extent of 100%.
WP(C) NO. 16572 OF 2020 -4-
the provisions of Rule 7 of the EPF Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules 1997, Section 29(2) of the Limitations Act, 1963 would not be applicable as specific period has been prescribed therein and the said period cannot be extended further.
“ 29(2) of the Limitations Act : Where any special or local law prescribes for any suit, appeal or application a period of limitation different from the period prescribed by the Schedule, the provisions of section 3 shall apply as if such period were the period prescribed by the Schedule and for the purpose of determining any period of limitation prescribed for any suit, appeal or application by any special or local law, the provisions contained in sections 4 to 24 (inclusive) shall apply only in so far as, and to the extent to which, they are not expressly excluded by such special or local law.
WP(C) NO. 16572 OF 2020 -5-
EPF Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules 1997
(1) Every appeal filed with the Registrar shall be accompanied by a fee of Rupees five hundred 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 situate.
(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 the 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 7-A.
WP(C) NO. 16572 OF 2020 -6-
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.”
WP(C) NO. 16572 OF 2020 -7-
At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the amount assessed may be paid in twelve(12) instalments. Petitioner is permitted to make the payment in 12 equal monthly instalments commencing from 30.11.2022. It is made clear that in case of default of any three instalments, respondents shall be at liberty to take action in accordance with law.
Sd/-
AMIT RAWAL JUDGE
vv
WP(C) NO. 16572 OF 2020 -8-
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16572/2020
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1
TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER UNDER S.14B OF
THE EPF ACT, 1952 ISSUED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT DATED 18.09.2018
EXHIBIT P2TRUE COPY OF THE HEARING NOTICE ISSUED
BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 19.12.2019
EXHIBIT P3TRUE COPY OF ORDER ISSUED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT IN APPEAL 774/2019 FILED BY
THE PETITIONER DATED 03.03.20
3 issues framed by the court
Whether condonation of delay under Limitation Act, 1963 is applicable when specific limitation rules under EPF Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1997 are prescribed.
Whether the writ petition challenging the dismissal of appeal due to delay warrants interference under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Whether the petitioner can be permitted to pay the assessed damages in instalments.
7 provisions across 4 enactments
DR. MENONS NURSING HOME
THE CENTRAL BOARD OF TRUSTEES
EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION
CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT
AMIT RAWAL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court