Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Yeshwant Sahakari Kamgar Bank Ltd. (now known as Brahmadev Dada Mane Sahakari Bank Limited, Solapur), filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 6th May 2005 passed by the Presiding Officer of the Employees' Provident Funds Appellate Tribunal in A.T.A. No. 480(9)/2003. The Tribunal had rejected the petitioner's appeal solely on the ground that it was barred by limitation, refusing to condone the delay. The relevant facts are that on 29th June 2000, the petitioner was allotted a Code Number under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, with retrospective effect from 1st October 1997. The petitioner complied with the directions of the authorities on 1st October 2001. Subsequently, the respondents issued an order dated 19th December 2001 calling upon the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs. 4,09,022/- towards interest under the Act. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, which was dismissed as time-barred. The High Court, after hearing both sides, observed that the Tribunal had not considered the explanation for the delay and had mechanically rejected the appeal. The court held that the Tribunal ought to have examined whether there was sufficient cause for condonation of delay and should have decided the appeal on merits. Accordingly, the High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order, and remanded the matter back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration on merits, directing the Tribunal to decide the appeal afresh after giving an opportunity of hearing to both parties.
Headnote
A) Limitation - Condonation of Delay - Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 - Appeal under Section 7I of Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 - The petitioner challenged the order of the Appellate Tribunal rejecting the appeal as barred by limitation without condoning delay - The High Court held that the Tribunal ought to have considered the explanation for delay and condoned it if sufficient cause was shown - The matter was remanded back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration on merits (Paras 1-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Employees' Provident Funds Appellate Tribunal erred in rejecting the appeal solely on the ground of limitation without considering the merits of the case, and whether the delay in filing the appeal should have been condoned.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order dated 6th May 2005, and remanded the matter back to the Employees' Provident Funds Appellate Tribunal for fresh consideration on merits. The Tribunal was directed to decide the appeal afresh after giving an opportunity of hearing to both parties.
Law Points
- Limitation Act
- 1963
- Section 5
- Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act
- 1952
- Section 7I
- Condonation of delay
- Sufficient cause
Case Details
2006 LawText (BOM) (12) 22
Writ Petition No. 7143 of 2005
Mr. Surel S. Shah for the Petitioner; Mr. Suresh Kumar for the Respondent No.1
Yeshwant Sahakari Kamgar Bank Ltd. (now known as Brahmadev Dada Mane Sahakari Bank Limited, Solapur) through its Authorised Signatory Anand Bandopant Badwe
1. The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Sub Regional Office, Solapur; 2. The Union of India, through Secretary, Department of Labour
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging the order of the Employees' Provident Funds Appellate Tribunal rejecting the appeal as barred by limitation.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought to set aside the Tribunal's order and to have the appeal heard on merits.
Filing Reason
The petitioner's appeal before the Tribunal was dismissed solely on the ground of limitation without considering the merits.
Previous Decisions
The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner issued an order dated 19th December 2001 demanding payment of Rs. 4,09,022/- towards interest. The petitioner appealed to the Tribunal, which rejected the appeal as time-barred on 6th May 2005.
Issues
Whether the Appellate Tribunal erred in rejecting the appeal solely on the ground of limitation without considering the explanation for delay.
Whether the delay in filing the appeal should have been condoned.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner argued that the Tribunal ought to have considered the explanation for delay and condoned it.
The respondents supported the Tribunal's order.
Ratio Decidendi
The Appellate Tribunal must consider the explanation for delay in filing an appeal and condone it if sufficient cause is shown, rather than mechanically rejecting the appeal as barred by limitation. The matter should be decided on merits after giving an opportunity of hearing.
Judgment Excerpts
The petitioner challenges order dated 6th May, 2005 passed by the Presiding Officer of the Employees Provident Funds Appellate Tribunal in A.T.A. No. 480(9)/2003.
By the impugned order the appeal filed by the petitioner has been rejected solely on the ground that it was barred by law of Limitation, while refusing to condone the delay.
Procedural History
The petitioner was allotted a Code Number under the EPF Act on 29th June 2000 with retrospective effect from 1st October 1997. The petitioner complied with directions on 1st October 2001. The respondents issued an order dated 19th December 2001 demanding interest of Rs. 4,09,022/-. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Employees' Provident Funds Appellate Tribunal, which was rejected on 6th May 2005 as time-barred. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition before the Bombay High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952: Section 7I
- Limitation Act, 1963: Section 5
