Any appeal preferred under that provision would have to be filed within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of the order appeal against as per Section 7-I of the EPF Act read with Rule 7(2) of the Employees' Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1997, before the Appellate Authority, who has been empowered to condone the delay in filing such appeal for an extended period of 60 days, if sufficient cause for not preferring appeal within that period is made out. However, the Petitioner, who had on 06.07.2012 received the copy of the said order dated 20.06.2012, did not prefer any such appeal before the Appellate Authority, but has instead filed this Writ Petition on 19.12.2012 challenging that order passed by the First Respondent beyond the maximum period of 120 days from the date of its receipt. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada -vs- Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited (Order dated 06.05.2020 in Civil Appeal No. 2413 of 2020) has emphatically laid down that the High Court in the exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ought not to entertain Writ Petition assailing the order passed by a Statutory Authority which was not appealed against within the maximum period of limitation before the concerned Appellate Authority. In view of that legal position, it is not possible to entertain this Writ Petition challenging the orders of the First Respondent.
