Dismissed

M/s. Amman Chamber v. The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner

Madras HC15 Oct 2025WP(MD)/23336/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An establishment challenged the Appellate Tribunal's rejection of its appeal against a Section 7A EPF contribution order as time-barred, the delay being 242 days. Following Rule 7(2), which caps condonation at 120 days, and Division Bench precedent following Popular Construction Co., the High Court dismissed the writ petition.

What the court decided

AI extract

M/s. Amman Chamber Vs The Assistant Provident Fund… — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2025)

¶1

WP(MD)No.23336 of 2023

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 15.10.2025

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

¶6

WP(MD)No.23336 of 2023 and WMP(MD)Nos.19524 and 19525 of 2023

¶7

M/s.Amman Chamber, Represented through its Proprietor V.Parthiban, 2/42, Chinnaiya Goundan Valasu, Mandavadi, Ambilikai, Oddanchatram, Dindigul – 624 612. ... Petitioner

¶8

versus

¶9

The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees' Provident Fund Organization, District Office No.16/A, Railway Station Road, Nagal Nagar, Dindigul – 624 003.

¶10

... Respondent

¶11

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the respondent vide Diary No.271/2020, file No.MD/MDU/1880802/Enf-B/M-13/2020 dated 23.11.2021 and the order passed by the Presiding Officer of Appellate Tribunal, CGIT, Chennai vide EPFA 56/2023 dated 11.08.2023 and quash the same.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Nallathambi

¶13

1/6

¶14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶15

For Respondent : Mr.S.Anwar Sameem Standing Counsel

¶16

WP(MD)No.23336 of 2023

¶17

ORDER

¶18

This writ petition has been filed as against the order of the Appellate Tribunal, passed in EPFA No.56/2023, dated 11.08.2023, rejecting the appeal preferred by the petitioner Establishment on the ground of limitation.

¶19

The EPF Authority has initiated a proceedings as against the petitioner Establishment and passed an order determining the contribution under Section 7A of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, by order dated 23.11.2021. As against the order dated 23.11.2021, the petitioner Establishment has preferred an appeal before the Employees' Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, Chennai. The Appellate Tribunal, while rejecting the appeal, referred to the provisions under Rule 7(2) of the Employees' Provident Funds Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rule, 1997, which reads as under:

¶20

“3. So far, the limitation is concerned, the provision under the Rule-7, Sub-Clause 2 of the Employees Provident Funds Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rule 1997, which reads as follows:

¶21

“Any person aggrieved by a notification issued by the Central Government or an order passed by the Central

¶22

2/6

¶23

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶24

WP(MD)No.23336 of 2023

¶25

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.

¶26

Provided that the Tribunal may if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by the sufficient cause from preferring the appeal within the prescribed period, extend the said person by a further period of 60 days.”

¶27

By referring the mandatory provision, the Appellate Tribunal, vide order dated 11.08.2023, has dismissed the appeal that there is no scope to condone the delay beyond 120 days and therefore, the inordinate delay of 242 days cannot be condoned. As against the order of the Appellate Tribunal dated 11.08.203, the petitioner Establishment has preferred this writ petition.

¶28

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Establishment submits that the Appellate Tribunal has entertained the appeal and also assigned number for the appeal. Once the appeal has been entertained, the appellate tribunal ought to have disposed of the matter on its merits and ought not to have rejected on limitation.

¶29

The learned counsel appearing for the respondent Authority, by referring to Rule 7(2) of the Employees Provident Funds Appellate Tribunal

¶30

3/6

¶31

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶32

WP(MD)No.23336 of 2023

¶33

(Procedure) Rule 1997, submits that it is a mandatory provision and the

¶34

Appellate Tribunal is not having the power to condone the delay beyond the

¶35

period of 120 days. The learned counsel has also relied on the following Judgments in support of his contention:

¶36

(i) 2005 (83) DRJ 647 (DB) (Assistant Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Meerut and others vs. Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal);

¶37

(ii) W.P.No.541 of 2017 dated 09.01.2017 (M/s.Trip Go Trip Tourism Pvt. Ltd. vs. The Presiding Officer, Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, Bengalurur and another);

¶38

(iii) W.A.No.338 of 2017 dated 23.07.2018 (M/s.Trip Go Trip Tourism Pvt. Ltd. vs. The Presiding Officer, Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, Bengaluru and another);

¶39

(iv) W.P.No.30732 of 2014 dated 22.11.2019 (The Assistant PF Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Coimbatore vs. The Presiding Officer, Employees' Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi and another);

¶40

(v) W.P.No.21057 of 2023 dated 17.07.2023 (M/s.Anjappar Chettinad AC Restaurant, Chennai vs. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II, Employees Provident Fund Organization, Salem and another).

¶41

4/6

¶42

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶43

WP(MD)No.23336 of 2023

¶44

Among these Judgments, a Division Bench of this Court, in W.A.No.338 of 2017 dated 23.07.2018, has rejected a similar appeal filed by

¶45

the Establishment that the Employees' Provident Fund Act provides for condonation of delay of 60 days only and any delay beyond the statutory period fixed under the Act cannot be condoned. The Division Bench has also passed the order, following the order of the Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of Union of India vs. Popular Construction Co. reported in ( 2001)

¶46

8 SCC 470 .

¶47

In view of the mandatory provision and the dictum laid down by the Division Bench of this Court (as stated supra), this Court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition.

¶48