M/S. Zieta Technoligies Private ... vs The Union Of India,
2023 Latest Caselaw 566 Tel

               HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

                  WRIT PETITION No.2969 OF 2023
ORAL ORDER:

        Heard Mr. V. Thirupathi Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner

and Mr. G. Venkateshwarlu, learned Standing Counsel appearing on

behalf of respondent Nos.3 to 5.

2. Respondent No.4 had passed an order No.TS/RO/KKP/PD/

Zone-I/68408/2022, dated 21.06.2022 under Section - 14B of the

Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952

(for short 'Act, 1952'), determining an amount of Rs.40,52,438/-

towards damages for the period from December,2010 to November,

2020. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order, the

petitioner herein had filed an appeal under Section - 7I of the Act, 1952

before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court

- Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad vide UR

(SR) No.849 of 2022. It has also filed an application seeking to condone

the delay of 108 days in preferring the appeal. The said application was

dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated 27.01.2023. Challenging the

said order, the petitioner herein has filed the present writ petition.

KL,J W.P. No.2969 of 2023

3. The petitioner herein had filed the aforesaid I.A. seeking to

condone the delay of 108 days in preferring the appeal on the ground that

it has received the impugned order only on 15.11.2022. Due to COVID-

19 pandemic, they have not paid the amount in time and the order passed

under Section - 14B of the Act, 1952 is an ex parte order. No

opportunity was given.

4. The aforesaid application was opposed by the respondents on

the ground that the Tribunal has no power to extend the limitation of

filing statutory appeal under Section - 7I of the Act, 1952 beyond 120

days (60+60). The impugned order dated 21.06.2022 was delivered on

the petitioner on 28.06.2022 itself. In proof of the same, they have filed

information obtained from the Postal Department.

5. Vide impugned order dated 27.01.2023, respondent No.2 has

dismissed the aforesaid application filed by the petitioner to condone the

delay on the ground that the Tribunal has no power to extend the

limitation beyond 120 days and it has no power to condone the delay. It

has also relied upon the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Saint

KL,J W.P. No.2969 of 2023

Soldier Modern Senior Secondary School v. Regional Provident

Fund Commissioner1.

6. Mr. V. Thirupathi Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner,

would submit that the petitioner had received the aforesaid order only on

15.11.2022 and there was delay of 108 days in filing the appeal. The

Tribunal has to consider the date of knowledge, but not date of order.

Without considering the said facts, respondent No.2 Tribunal has

dismissed the aforesaid application seeking to condone the delay of 108

days in filing the appeal. Therefore, the impugned order is not on

consideration of actual facts and law.

7. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the

respondent referring to the order dated 03.12.2008 in W.P. No.14725 of

2005 passed by the combined High Court of Andhra Pradesh at

Hyderabad, and as confirmed by a Division Bench of High Court for the

State of Telangana at Hyderabad, vide judgment dated 08.11.2021 in

W.A. No.539 of 2008, would submit that the Tribunal has no power to

condone the delay beyond 120 days.

. 2014 SCC OnLine Del. 3140

KL,J W.P. No.2969 of 2023

8. In the aforesaid judgment, dated 08.11.2021, the Division

Bench has relied upon the judgment of a Division Bench of Delhi High

Court in Assistant Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Meerut

v. Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal2. In both the

orders, there is categorical finding that the Tribunal cannot condone the

delay beyond 120 days and the same is impermissible.

9. As per Rule - 7 (2) of the Employees' Provident Funds

Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1997, 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. Therefore, the aforesaid statutory appeal shall be filed within

sixty (60) days from the date of the order and that the Tribunal has

power to condone the delay of sixty (60) days. The Tribunal has no

power to condone the delay beyond 60 days.

. 2006-II-LLJ 338

KL,J W.P. No.2969 of 2023

10. In the present case, the respondents have filed information

obtained from the Postal Department to show that the impugned order

dated 21.06.2022 passed by respondent No.4 under Section - 14B of the

Act, 1952 was served on the petitioner on 28.06.2022 itself. The said

aspects were specifically considered by the Tribunal in the impugned

order dated 27.01.2023. There is no denial to the said aspect. In view of

the aforesaid discussion and the law laid down by the High Courts in the

aforesaid decisions, according to this Court, there is no error in the said

impugned order dated 27.01.2023 passed in US (SR) No.849 of 2022 by

respondent No.2.

11. At this stage, Mr. V. Thirupathi Reddy, learned counsel for

the petitioner, would submit that the petitioner is suffering from financial

problem due to COVID-19 pandemic, and all the employees are working

from home. However, in view of the present situation, the petitioner will

pay the aforesaid amount of Rs.40,52,438/- in installments, for which he

sought some reasonable time. The said amount is towards damages and

not towards contributions. Considering the said aspects, this Court is

inclined to grant some protection to the petitioner herein.

KL,J W.P. No.2969 of 2023

12. In view of the above discussion and considering the request

made by the petitioner, this writ petition is disposed of directing the

petitioner to pay the aforesaid amount of Rs.40,52,438/- in six (06)

monthly equal installments within six (06) months from today

commencing from 15th February, 2023, failing which, the respondents

are at liberty to take necessary steps in accordance with law for recovery

of the said amount. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the

writ petition shall stand closed.

_________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J 3rd February, 2023 Note: Furnish C.C. of order by 06.02.2023.

(B/O.) Mgr