Rajasthan Shiksha Karmi Board vs Employees Provident Fund ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 6820 Raj/2

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 6820 Raj/2
Judgement Date : 23 November, 2021

Rajasthan High Court

Rajasthan Shiksha Karmi Board vs Employees Provident Fund ... on 23 November, 2021

Bench: Mahendar Kumar Goyal

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                  BENCH AT JAIPUR

               S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20537/2019
M/s Panchayat Samiti, Through Its BEEO, Dungla Chittorgarh
(Rajasthan).
                                                                  ----Petitioner
                                   Versus
Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Employee Provident
Fund Organization Regional Office, Nidhi Bhawan, Chitrakoot
Nagar, Bhuwana, Udaipur (Raj.).
                                                                ----Respondent

Connected With

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20898/2019 M/s Panchayat Samiti, Through Its BEEO, Rashmi, Chittorgarh Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus Assistant Provident Fund, Commissioner, Employee Provident Fund Organization Regional Office, Nidhi Bhawan, Chitrakoot Nagar, Bhuwana, Udaipur (Raj)

----Respondent S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20900/2019 M/s Panchayat Samiti Sarada, Though Its BEEO, Sarada, Udaipur Rajasthan 311001.

----Petitioner Versus Assistant Provident Fund, Commissioner, Employee Provident Fund Organization Regional Office, Nidhi Bhawan, Chitrakoot Nagar, Bhuwan, Udaipur (Raj) 313042.

----Respondent S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2279/2020 M/s Panchayat Samiti Bhindar, Through Its BEEO Bhindar, Udaipur Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Employee Provident Fund Organization Regional Office, Nedhi Bhawan, Chitrakoot

(2 of 4) [CW-20537/2019]

Nagar, Bhuwana, Udaipur (Raj.) 313042.

----Respondent S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12235/2020 Rajasthan Shiksha Karmi Board, Through Its Dy. Director, Shiksha Sankul Premises, 5th Floor, 5th Block, J.L.N. Marg, Jaipur.

----Petitioner Versus Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Regional Office, 130, Paschim Pal Vistar Yojana, Jodhpur Through Its Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner.

----Respondent S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12237/2020 Panchayat Samiti Kotra, District Udaipur Through B.E.E.O.

----Petitioner Versus Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Sub-Regional Office, Chitrakoot Nagar, Bhuwana, Udaipur Through Its Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (DMG).

----Respondent S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12271/2020 Rajasthan Shiksha Karmi Board, Through Its Dy. Director, Shiksha Sankul Premises, 5th Foor, 5th Block, J.L.N. Marg, Jaipur.

----Petitioner Versus Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Regional Office Nidhi Bhawan, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur Through Its Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner.

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Parikshit Singh Shekhawat and Mr. Lokendra Singh Shekhawat For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deepak Goyal

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL

Order

23/11/2021

(3 of 4) [CW-20537/2019]

All these writ petitions have been preferred against the

orders passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal,

Jaipur (for brevity, 'the learned Tribunal') whereby, the appeals

preferred by the petitioners herein under Section 7-I of the

Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act,

1952, have been dismissed being beyond the period of limitation

as the same were filed beyond the statutory period of 120 days.

Learned counsels for the respective parties are in agreement

that the issue of competence of this Court to extend the period of

the limitation is no more res-integra and stands resolved by a

Division Bench of this Court vide its judgment dated 14.02.2020 in

D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.1624/2019: Employees

Provident Fund Organisation Vs. Rajasthan Shiksha Karmi

Board. In the aforesaid case, it was held as under:

"10. The `ratio decidendi' of the aforesaid judgements leaves no room for discretion by the High Court exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to condone the delay or to extend the period of limitation beyond the period specified in the special statute. Therefore, we are in respectful disagreement with the judgment dated 22.03.2017 passed by the co- ordinate bench of this Court in the case of Assistant Provident Funds Commissioner (supra) which has, obviously, been passed without taking into consideration the aforesaid dictum deep rooted in a series of cases by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In Suganthi Suresh Kumar vs. Jagdeeshan- (2002) 2 SCC 420, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that it is not only a matter of discipline for the High Courts in India, it is the mandate of the Constitution as provided in Article 141 that the law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts within the territory of India. The judgement of the coordinate bench of this Court can be reckoned as per incuriam as it has been passed oblivious of the judgements of the Hon'ble Apex Court, as taken note of by us. In these circumstances, we cannot countenance the approach adopted by the learned Single Judge and the appeal deserves to be allowed. Therefore, we

(4 of 4) [CW-20537/2019]

quash and set aside the judgment dated 07.08.2019."

Since, the only issue involved in these writ petitions pertain

to condonation of delay in the appeal preferred before the learned

Tribunal filed beyond the statutory period of 120 days, in view of

the judgment of this Court in case of Employees Provident Fund

Organisation (supra), no such relief for extension of the period of

limitation can be granted by this Court.