Som Phyto Pharma India Ltd., Medak ... vs The Regional P.F. Commissioner , ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 3275 Tel

       The Hon'ble The Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
                                        and
            The Hon'ble Sri Justice A. Rajasheker Reddy
                        Writ Appeal No.539 of 2008
Judgment: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)

         The     present       appeal      is     arising     out     of   Order

dated 13.03.2008, passed by the learned Single Judge in

W.P.No.14725 of 2005.

2.       The facts of the case reveal that as against the order passed

by respondent No.2, under Section 7-A of the Employees'

Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for

short 'the Act of 1952'), on 04.09.2000, an appeal was preferred

before the Tribunal. The appeal was certainly barred by

limitation and therefore, an application was filed for condoning

the delay.

The undisputed facts of the case reveal that the appeal was

preferred on 23.07.2001. The Tribunal has dismissed the

application for condonation of delay of 246 days vide order dated

20.04.2005. Against the said order of the Tribunal, writ

petition was preferred and the same has been dismissed by the

learned Single Judge, taking into account the judgment delivered

by a Division Bench of this Court in case of Assistant Regional

Provident Fund Commissioner, Meerut vs. Employees

Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal and others1.

2006-II-LLJ 338

The statutory provisions governing the field as contained

under Rule 7 of the Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1997, are

reproduced as under:

"Fee, time for filing appeal, deposit of amount due on filing appeal-

(1) Every appeal filed with the Registry shall be accompanied by a fee of two thousand rupees to be remitted in the form of crossed demand draft on a nationalised bank in favour of the Registrar of the Tribulal and payable at the main branch of that Bank at the station where the seat of the said Tribunal is situated ] (2) Any person aggrieved by a notification issued by the Central Government or an Order passed by the Central Government or any other authority under the Act, may within 60 days from the date of issue of the notification/order, prefer an appeal to the Tribunal.

Provided 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.

Provided further that no appeal by the employer shall be entertained by a Tribunal unless he has deposited with the Tribunal [a Demand Draft Payable in the Fund and bearing] 75 per cent of the amount due from him as determined under Section 7-A;

Provided also that the Tribunal may for reasons to be recorded in writing, waive or reduce the amount to be deposited under Section 7-O."

The aforesaid statutory provision of law makes it very clear

that an appeal has to be preferred within 60 days from the date of

the order passed under Section 7-A of the Act of 1952 and the

Tribunal enjoys power to condone the delay up to a period of 60

days after the prescribed period. After 120 days, the Tribunal

does not have a jurisdiction to entertain the appeal or to condone

delay.

In these circumstances, in the considered opinion of this

Court, Tribunal was justified in dismissing of appeal and the

learned Single Judge was also justified in dismissing the Writ

Petition. In the considered opinion of this Court, as the Act of

1952 does not provide for condonation of delay beyond 120

days, this Court also cannot rewrite the Statute by condoning the

delay.

Writ appeal is dismissed accordingly. Consequently,

Interlocutory Applications, pending if any, stand dismissed.

_______________________ Satish Chandra Sharma, CJ

____________________ A. Rajasheker Reddy, J 08.11.2021 lur