1 2025:CGHC:3751 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPL No. 124 of 2024 1 - M/s Umakanta Associates L-201, 2nd Floor, Rishabh Citi Prime, Potiyakala, Durg-491001, Through Its Sole Proprietor, Shri Umakanta Rout S/o Mangala Rout, Aged About 47 Years. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-Ii, Raipur, Employees Provident Fund Organization, Pin- 492004. ---- Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Harsh Wardhan, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Ajay Kumar Dwivedi, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 21.01.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to the case of the Petitioner available in the office of the Respondents, for its kind perusal. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 28.02.2024 (ANNEXURE - P/3) passed by the learned CGIT come labour court Jabalpur. 10.3 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to -2- remand the matter to the respondent to decide the entire issue a fresh as per section 14-B in accordance with the principles of law. 10.4 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant cost of the petition to the Petitioner.” 2. Mr. Harsh Wardhan, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the respondent authority assessed damages part according to the provisions of Section 14-B of the Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short ‘the Act of 1952’) to the tune of Rs.28,77,079/- vide order dated 28.06.2023. He would further submit that the petitioner preferred an appeal against the said order according to the provisions of the Act of 1952 before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur on 22.02.2024. He would contend that the Appellate Authority rejected the application for condonation of delay on the ground that according to Rule 7(2) of the EPFA Tribunal Procedure Rules, 1997, the period of limitation can be extended for a further period of 60 days and not more than that. He would further contend that the original order was passed by the Assessing Officer contrary to the provisions of the EPF Act and sufficient opportunity was not afforded to the petitioner. He would lastly that the learned Tribunal ought to have taken a lenient view while deciding the application for condonation of delay, therefore, the order dated 28.02.2024 is liable to be quashed. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Dwivedi, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent would oppose the submissions made by Mr. 3 Harshwardhan. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents. 5. Rule 7(2) of EPFA Tribunal Procedure Rule, 1997 reads as under:- "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: 6. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the matter of the Divisional Railway Manager Jabalpur Division Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Misc. Petition No. 2372 of 2022 while dealing with a similar issue held that when an Act itself provides for a limitation period and also the extended period of limitation, the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963 cannot be invoked as the applicability of the limitation is barred by the operation of Special Act. It is further held that the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 is a beneficial legislation for the employees and is not meant for the employer. 7. With regard to the contention made by Mr. Harshwardhan that the opportunity of hearing was not afforded and the provisions of the EPF Act were not followed. These grounds were available to the petitioner before the Appellate Authority but as the appeal preferred by the petitioner has already been dismissed, these -4- grounds are not available in the preset petition. The issue involved in the present case is whether the appellate authority was justified in rejecting the application for condonation of delay as the appeal was not filed within the extended period of limitation, therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the learned Tribunal has rightly rejected the application for condonation of delay as well as justified in dismissing the appeal. Thus, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Tribunal. Consequently, the present petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha