Bombay High Court
Akole Taluka Education Societys ... vs Asst Provident Fund Commissioner ... on 18 October, 2016
Bench: R.V. Ghuge
*1* 903.wp.10478.16
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 10478 OF 2016
Akole Taluka Education Society's
Industrial Training Institute, Akole,
Tq.Akole, Dist.Ahmednagar.
Through it's Principal
Shri Vidyachandra Rajaram Satpute,
Age : 51 years, Occupation : Service,
R/o Akole, Tq.Akole, Dist.Ahmednagar.
...PETITIONER
-VERSUS-
Asstt.Provident Fund Commissioner,
Sub Regional Office (Damges),
Employees Provident Fund Organization,
P-11, Bhavishya Nidhi Bhavan,
MIDC Area, Satpur, Nashik.
...RESPONDENT
...
Advocate for Petitioner : Shri V.P.Golewar h/f Shri Joshi Arvind Ramakant.
Advocate for Respondent : Shri K.B.Chaudhari.
...
CORAM: RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
DATE :- 18th October, 2016
Oral Judgment :
1 Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the
consent of the parties.
2 The Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 02.09.2016 by
*2* 903.wp.10478.16
which the appeal preferred by the Petitioner under the order of this Court
dated 27.06.2016 in Writ Petition No.1684/2016, has been held to be time
barred since the appeal was filed beyond the stipulated period granted by
this Court.
3 I have considered the submissions of Shri Golewar, learned
Advocate on behalf of the Petitioner and Shri Chaudhari, learned Advocate
on behalf of the Respondent.
4 Shri Chaudhari has vehemently opposed this petition and
submits that the Petitioner was granted four weeks time to file the appeal
by order dated 27.06.2016 and since the Petitioner failed in doing so, the
Appellate Tribunal has rightly concluded that the appeal is time barred
and it has no jurisdiction to condone the delay.
5 I find from the order dated 27.06.2016 passed by this Court
that the Petitioner was granted the liberty to prefer an appeal considering
the statement of the Respondent/Department that the order was passed in
common proceedings by holding a common hearing and for the same
period. This Court in paragraph 5 of the order had granted four weeks
time to the Petitioner. It appears that the appeal was delayed by 35 days.
*3* 903.wp.10478.16
6 Considering the above, this Writ Petition is allowed. The delay
of 35 days caused in filing of the appeal is condoned. The Provident Fund
Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi is directed to register the appeal filed by
the Petitioner.
7 The Appellate Tribunal shall note that since a common
hearing in common proceedings for the same period 01.04.1996 to
30.09.2015 has taken place, it would be beneficial for the parties that the
appeals preferred by the Petitioner should be heard together.
8 In order to avoid wastage of time, the learned Advocates for
the respective sides submit that the parties would appear before the
Appellate Tribunal on 21.11.2016 at 11:00 am and shall abide by the next
dates of hearing as may be granted by the Appellate Tribunal. As such, no
formal notice is required to be issued by the Appellate Tribunal.
9 Rule is made absolute in the above terms.
kps (RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
