Delhi High Court
Central Board Of Trustees, Epf vs Employees Provident Fund ... on 23 September, 2015
Author: Sunil Gaur
I- 7 & 8
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: September 23, 2015
+ W.P.(C) 9104/2015 & C.M.Nos. 20690-91/2015
CENTRAL BOARD OF TRUSTEES, EPF ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. R.C. Chawla, Mr. D.
Rajeshwar Rao & Mr. Charanjeet
Singh, Advocates
versus
EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND APPELLTE TRIBUNAL &
ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Nemo.
+ W.P.(C) 9112/2015 & C.M.Nos. 20706-07/2015
CENTRAL BOARD OF TRUSTEES, EPF ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. R.C. Chawla, Mr. D.
Rajeshwar Rao & Mr. Charanjeet
Singh, Advocates
versus
EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND APPELLTE TRIBUNAL &
ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Nemo.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
% (ORAL)
The imposition of costs for not filing counter within the stipulated
time is assailed in the above captioned two petitions. Since challenge to
the impugned orders of 17th August, 2015 and 13th August, 2015
W.P.(C) 9112/2015
(Annexure P-1 in W.P.(C) 9104/2015 & 9112/2015) is on identical
grounds, therefore, both these petitions were heard together and are being
disposed of by this common judgment.
At the hearing, learned counsel for petitioner contends that the
learned Employees' Provident Fund Tribunal (henceforth referred to as
the 'Tribunal') has no authority to impose costs and so, imposition of
costs for not filing counter in time is unjust and impugned order imposing
costs of `10,000/- for not filing counter in time deserves to be set aside.
Reliance was placed upon decision of a Division Bench of this Court in
Assistant Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Merrut Vs. Employees
Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal 2005 VII AD (Delhi) 155 to submit
that the Section 5 of Limitation Act does not apply to the proceedings
conducted by the learned Tribunal.
Reliance was also placed upon decision of Coordinate Bench of
this Court in Modern Public School Education Soceity (Regd.) & anr. Vs.
Presiding Officer, E.P.F. Appellate Tribunal & ors. 2007 LAB I.C.
1(Delhi High Court) & Saint Soldier Modern Senior Secondary School
Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner 2015 (144) FLR 109 to
submit that an appeal filed beyond the period of limitation, cannot be
entertained by the Tribunal, as the Tribunal has no power to condone the
delay. Thus, it was submitted that the impugned orders of 17 th August,
2015 and 13th August, 2015 (Annexure P-1 in W.P.(C) 9104/2015 &
9112/2015) deserve to be set aside.
Upon hearing and on perusal of the impugned orders imposing
costs, material on record and decisions cited, I find that the period of
limitation provided for filing the counter, as prescribed in Rule 12 of The
W.P.(C) 9112/2015
Employees' Provident Funds Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1997
is one month. Clause (5) of the aforesaid Rule empowers the Tribunal to
allow filing the reply / counter after expiry of the prescribed period. Rule
21 of the aforesaid Rules empowers the Tribunal to pass orders/
directions, as may be necessary or expedient to give effect to its orders or
to prevent abuse of its process or to secure the ends of justice.
In the face of afore-referred Rule 21 of The Employees' Provident
Funds Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1997, it cannot be said that
the learned Tribunal has no powers to impose costs while enlarging time
for filing the counter. The power of imposing the costs need not be
express and is implied, as Clause (5) of Rule 12 of The Employees'
Provident Funds Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1997 permits the
Tribunal to enlarge time for filing of the counter/ replies. Therefore,
decisions relied upon by learned counsel for petitioner has no application
to the facts of the instant case.
In the considered opinion of this Court, learned Employees'
Provident Fund Tribunal has the powers to impose costs in appropriate
cases. It is a matter of record that petitioner had sought waiver of costs
by moving an application and learned Employees' Provident Fund
Tribunal vide order of 26th August, 2015 has dismissed the said
application by observing that it is the habit of officials of E.P.F.
Organisation to not to adhere to the directions of the Tribunal and the
counter replies are filed only when the matter is brought to the notice of
Central Provident Fund Commissioner by the Tribunal. In such a
situation, imposition of costs upon petitioner is well justified.
In view of the aforesaid, finding no substance in the above
W.P.(C) 9112/2015
captioned petitions, they are dismissed. Applications are dismissed as
infructuous.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
September 23, 2015
r
W.P.(C) 9112/2015
