Teams Global Village Accademy ... vs The Assistant Provident Fund ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 3342 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

                 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BADAR

      FRIDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 9TH MAGHA, 1942

                       WP(C).No.2324 OF 2021(M)


PETITIONER:

               TEAMS GLOBAL VILLAGE ACCADEMY PRIVATE LIMITED
               REPRESENTED BY IT'S MANAGING DIRECTOR,
               THALIKKODE (P.O), PATTIKKAD, MANNUTHY,
               THRISSUR-680 652

               BY ADVS.
               SRI.NIDHI BALACHANDRAN
               SRI.P.D.PAULY

RESPONDENTS:

      1        THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER,
               EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, REGIONAL
               OFFICE, BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAWAN, KALOOR, KOCHI-682 017

      2        ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER & RECOVERY
               OFFICER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION,
               REGIONAL OFFICE, BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAWAN, KALOOR,
               KOCHI-682 017.


OTHER PRESENT:

               SRI.THOMAS MATHEW NELLIMOOTTIL, SC.


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
29.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 W.P.(C) No.2324/2021              2


                            JUDGMENT

Dated this the 29th day of January 2021

By this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the order

dated 19.03.2020 passed by the Presiding Officer of the Central

Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Ernakulam in

Appeal No.499 of 2019.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and also the

learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the

petitioner-institution started functioning in the year 2009 and from

2016, the Managing Director of the institution came to be

removed. It is argued that then inspection of the institution was

conducted in the year 2017 by the authorities under the

Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act,

1952. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, in that

inspection, it is alleged that 27 workers were found to be working.

This was on the basis of evidence of some workers. However,

proceedings under Section 7A of the EPF Act were conducted

ex parte and in the absence of the petitioner. Learned counsel for

the petitioner, however, submitted that the appeal filed by the

petitioner challenging the order passed under Section 7A of the

EPF Act was barred by limitation and the petitioner is not disputing

that fact.

4. I have considered the submissions so advanced and

perused the impugned order. Undisputedly, as per Rule 7(2) of

the Employees' Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal (Procedure)

Rules 1997, the limitation for preferring an appeal challenging the

order passed under Section 7A of the EPF Act is 60 days from the

date of issuance of order. The Tribunal is empowered to condone

the delay of further period of 60 days provided sufficient cause for

preferring the appeal is demonstrated by the appellant. In the

case in hand, the petitioner had preferred appeal on 15.10.2019

impugning the order dated 13.12.2018 passed by the authorities

under Section 7A of the EPF Act.

5. In this view of the matter, no error can be found with the

impugned order rejecting the appeal as barred by limitation.

Unless and until the appeal is within limitation, merits of the

matter cannot be gone into as the court cannot get jurisdiction in

the matter.

This writ petition as such is devoid of merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. Sd/-

A.M.BADAR

JUDGE smp

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS NO.

KR/KC/24894/ENF-IV(1)/2018/157 DATED 13.12.18 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 19.2.2020 IN APPEAL NO. 499/19 OF THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND APPELLATE TRIBUNAL.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE OF DEMAND NO.KR/KCH 24894/RECOVERY/2020-21 ALONG WITH COVERING LETTER DATED 17.12.20. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL.

True Copy

P.S to Judge

smp