Petitioner sought condonation of a 341-day delay in filing an appeal under the EPF Act. The court held that while the limitation period is harsh, the Writ Court lacks power to extend the statutory limit of 120 days prescribed under the Act and dismissed the petition.
Writ Petition dismissed; no direction to condone delay afforded.
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 JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 01.07.2021
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN
W.P.No.23147 of 2017
Cenza Technologies, Old No.8, New No.4, Perungudi Industrial Estate, Perungudi, Chennai – 600 096. represented by its General Manager (Finance), Mr.Yegnasubramanian ...Petitioner Vs
3.The Enforcement Officer, Division 12 and 19, (Previous Division 20), Employees' Provident Fund Organization, Regional Office, 37, Royapettah High Road, Chennai 600 014. ... Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of Mandamus, directing the first Respondent to condone the delay of 341 days in filing the Appeal.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Menaka For 1st Respondent : No appearance For Respondents 2 & 3 : Mr.T.R.Sundaram
O R D E R
Petitioner/Management has come up with this Writ Petition seeking a direction to the 1st Respondent/EPF Appellate Tribunal to condone the delay of 341 days in filing the Appeal against the impugned order dated 18.04.2016 passed by the 2nd Respondent/EPF Appellate Tribunal in rejecting their plea on the ground that, beyond 120 days prescribed under the Employees' Provident Fund Act, 1952 (in short 'EPF Act') read with Rules made thereunder, no Appeal can be entertained.
“6. Even though the period of limitation prescribed is three years, it is to be noted that some of the employers may
take recourse to law with immediate effect or some of them may disappear from the scene and in that event, it is very difficult for the ESI Corporation to keep a watch over them and ascertain whether any appeal has been preferred within three years or not. The ESI Corporation is bound to take coercive action, which would make the employer to file an appeal under Section 75 of the ESI Act. This Court has already held that the Legislatures must think of reducing the period of time limit prescribed under the ESI Act to prefer an appeal and reduce the period from three years to one year, as the Court has no power either to legislate or to make any amendment to the Act. After one year and within three years, the ESI Court can entertain the dispute under Section 75 provided the entire amount is deposited and that beyond one year, the waiver application cannot be entertained. On one such occasion, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Krishna District Co-operative Marketing Society Limited vs. N.V.Purnachandra Rao, (1987) 4 SCC 99, had suggested for amendment of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act and the relevant paragraph is extracted hereunder:
“11. We may incidentally observe that the Central Act itself should be suitably amended making it possible to an individual workman to seek redress in an appropriate forum regarding illegal termination of service which may take the form of dismissal, discharge, retrenchment etc. or modification of punishment imposed in a domestic enquiry. An amendment of the Central Act introducing such provisions will make the law simpler and also will reduce the delay in the adjudication of industrial disputes. Many learned authors of books on industrial law have also been urging for such an amendment. The State Act in the instant case has to some extent met the above demand by enacting section 41 providing for a machinery for
settling disputes arising out of termination of service which can be resorted to by an individual workman. In this connection we have one more suggestion to make. The nation remembers with gratitude the services rendered by the former Labour Appellate Tribunal which was manned by some of our eminent Judges by evolving great legal principles in the field of labour law, in particular with regard to domestic enquiry, bonus, gratuity, fair wages, industrial adjudication etc. The Industrial Disputes (Appellate Tribunal) Act, 1950 which provided for an all-India appellate body with powers to hear appeals against the orders and awards of Industrial Tribunals and Labour Courts in India was repealed in haste. If it had continued by now the labour jurisprudence would have developed perhaps on much more satisfactory lines than what it is today. There is a great need today to revive and to bring into existence an all- India Labour Appellate Tribunal with powers to hear appeals against the decisions of all Labour Courts, Industrial Tribunals and even of authorities constituted under several labour laws enacted by the States so that a body of uniform and sound principles of Labour law may be evolved for the benefit of both industry and labour throughout India. Such an appellate authority can become a very efficient body on account of specialisation. There is a demand for the revival of such an appellate body even from some workers' organisations. This suggestion is worth considering. All this we are saying because we sincerely feel that the Central Act passed forty years ago needs a second look and requires a comprehensive amendment."
the Secretary, Ministry of Law & Justice, Government of India, New Delhi, for necessary action, as regards paragraph 7 of this order.
The Writ Petition is dismissed with the above observation. No costs.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS-VII)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
(aeb)
To
4.The Secretary, Ministry of Law & Justice, Government of India, New Delhi.
+1 cc to M/s.S.Menaka, Advocate Sr.No.30982
W.P.No.23147 of 2017
KV(CO) RVM(17/08/2021)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the Writ Court can condone a delay of 341 days in filing an appeal against the EPF Act which prescribes a rigid time limit of 120 days.
Whether the court has power to extend the statutory limitation period prescribed by the Employees' Provident Fund Act, 1952.
Whether the legislature must think of amending the EPF Act to permit Tribunals to entertain appeals beyond 120 days.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Krishna District Co-operative Marketing Society Limited vs. N.V.Purnachandra RaoReferred¶23
Krishna District Co-operative Marketing Society Limited vs. N.V.Purnachandra Rao, (1987) 4 SCC 99 · Who else cites this
W.P.No.13290 of 2021Followed¶20
W.P.No.13290 of 2021
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Cenza Technologies
The Employees' Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal
The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (C & R)
The Enforcement Officer, Division 12 and 19
S. Vaidyanathan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
