Jharkhand High Court
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited vs Assistant Provident Fund ... on 7 June, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No.5362 of 2021
-----
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Daltonganj. .......... Petitioner.
-Versus-
1. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund
Organization, Regional Office, Jharkhand, Bhagirathi Complex,
Near Circuit House, Karamtoli, Ranchi.
2. Recovery Officer, Employees Provident Fund Organization,
Regional Office, Jharkhand, Bhagirathi Complex, Near Circuit
House, Karamtoli, Ranchi.
.......... Respondents.
-----
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
-----
For the Petitioner : Mr. P. K. Sinha, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Rupesh Singh, Advocate
-----
Order No.03 Date: 07.06.2022
The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order
dated 1st October, 2021 passed by the Presiding Officer, Central
Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court (No.2), Dhanbad in
Case no.IT-2/3/2020, whereby the appeal filed against the order dated
5th September, 2019 passed by the Assessing Officer- Assistant
Provident Fund Commissioner (CC-1), Ranchi under Section 7A of the
Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952
(hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act, 1952) has been dismissed on
the ground of limitation only. Further prayer has been made for staying
the proceeding of Certificate Case no.5775, pending before the
Recovery officer, Employees Provident Fund Organization, Regional
Office, Ranchi including all prohibitory orders.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the contents
of the writ petition.
The appeal preferred by the petitioner under Section 7-I of the
Act, 1952 against the order dated 5th September, 2019 passed by the
Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Ranchi has not been
entertained on the ground that the said appeal was filed by the
petitioner beyond the combined limitation period of 120 days (60 days
+ 60 days) in view of first proviso of Rule 7(2) of the Tribunal
(Procedure) Rules, 1997. The said issue is no more res integra. It has
already been held in various judicial pronouncements that the delay in
filing appeal beyond the period prescribed under the special enactment
or the rule framed thereunder cannot be condoned. Learned Division
Bench of this Court in the case of M/s. Nagarmal Modi Seva Sadan,
Ranchi Vs. Employees' Provident Fund Organization, Regional
Office, Ranchi & Ors., reported in 2021(2) JBCJ 410 (Jhr.),
after considering various judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court
rendered on the present issue has held as under:-
"14. In view of the foregoing discussion, the legal position which
emerges that in terms of Section 7-I (2) every appeal is to be filed in
such form and manner, within such time and be accompanied by such
fees, as may be prescribed. Rule 7 (2) of the Rules, 1997 provides for
filing of the appeal within 60 days from the date of issuance of the
order. The first proviso thereunder further stipulates that the Tribunal
may, if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient
cause from preferring the appeal within the prescribed period, extend
the said period by a further period of 60 days.
It is thus seen that the EPF Act is a special law providing for
institution of provident funds, pension fund and deposit-linked
insurance fund for employees in factories and other establishments
and in terms of the rules framed thereunder a certain period of
limitation for filing an appeal having been provided for in clear terms
and a further provision having been made for extension of such period
only upto a specified time period and no further, the Appellate Tribunal
would have no jurisdiction to treat within limitation, an appeal filed
before it beyond such maximum time limit specified in terms of the
statutory rules.
Moreover, in terms of the scheme and the intent of the
provisions contained in the EPF Act it is seen that the legislature
intended it to be a complete code by itself. As a consequence, even if
the provisions of the Limitation Act may be held to have not been
expressly excluded the principle of implied exclusion would apply in
terms of the nature of the subject matter, the purpose and the scheme
of the Act. The provisions contained under the Limitation Act, 1963
would therefore not be applicable for seeking extension of time
beyond the statutory time period of 60 days from the date of issue of
the notification/order, extendable by a further period of 60 days, upon
the Tribunal being satisfied that the appellant was prevented by
sufficient cause from preferring the appeal within the prescribed
period. The maximum period for filing the appeal would be thus 120
(60+60) days from the date of the issuance of the notification/order
which is sought to be challenged.
It is a well settled principle of statutory interpretation that
where the statute confers power on the authority to condone the delay
only to a limited extent the same cannot be stretched or extended
beyond what has been provided under the statute."
Admittedly, the petitioner had preferred the appeal before the
Appellate Tribunal i.e. Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-
Labour Court (No.2), Dhanbad beyond the combined limitation period
of 120 days from the date of the order passed by the Assistant
Provident Fund Commissioner, Ranchi under Section 7-A of the Act,
1952. Hence, this Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned
order dated 1st October, 2021 passed by the Appellate Tribunal in Case
no.IT-2/3/2020 refusing to entertain the petitioner's appeal being
barred by limitation.
The writ petition being devoid of merit is, accordingly,
dismissed.
(Rajesh Shankar, J.)
Sanjay/
