Karnataka High Court
M/S.Thrupthi Enterprises vs The Assistant Provident Fund ... on 9 April, 2018
Author: L.Narayana Swamy
Bench: L. Narayana Swamy
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 09TH DAY OF APRIL, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. NARAYANA SWAMY
WRIT PETITION NO. 2150/2017 (L- PF)
BETWEEN
M/s. Thrupthi Enterprises,
No.33, 3rd Floor, 1st Main Road,
Mahalakshmi Layout,
Bangalore-560096.
Represented by its Proprietor
Sri. Srinivas ...Petitioner
(By Sri.Abhijeet S.K.Rai, Advocate)
AND
The Assistant Provident
Fund Commissioner,
Regional Office, Peenya,
No.62, 3rd Cross, Industrial Sub-Rub,
Yeshvanthpur 2nd stage,
Bangalore ...Respondent
(By Sri.B.Pramod, Advocate)
This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
Constitution of India praying to quash order dated 04-01-
2017 passed in Appeal No.428(6) 2016 by the EPF Appellate
Tribunal vide Annexure - H and Direct the EPF Appellate
Tribunal, Bengaluru to restore the Appeal filed by the
Petitioner and quash the order dated 31.05.2012 passed
-2-
under Section 7A of the Act by the respondent vide Annexure-
A.
This petition coming on for preliminary hearing 'B'
group this day, the court made the following:
ORDER
An order has been passed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner on 31.05.2012 initiating proceedings under Section 7A of Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for brevity 'EPFMP Act') against the petitioner asking him to deposit an amount of Rs.29,20,329/- towards provident fund contributions for the period from March 2006 to February 2012, within 15 days from the date of receipt of order. Being aggrieved by the same petitioner has filed this writ petition praying to quash the order dated 31.05.2012
2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, petitioner had given reasons for non payment of contribution and prepared a statement and submitted the same to the Enforcement Officer attached to the respondent. On the basis of the said assessment made by the -3- Enforcement Officer, the respondent passed an ex-parte order and issued a show cause notice dated 08.02.2016 asking him as to why action should not be taken under Section 7A of EPFMP Act and further stating that the petitioner has committed default in payment of provident fund contributions for the period from March 2006 to February 2012 and directing him to pay Rs.33,61,998/- being arrears of provident fund contributions, as calculated by the Enforcing Officer, payable for the period from March 2006 to February 2012.
3. In pursuance to the notice, the petitioner has given a representation dated 01.03.2016 requesting to give reasonable time to pay the contributions in six installments and also showed his readiness and willingness to pay and further requested the respondent not to take any action.
4. It is further submitted that the petitioner has given one more request dated 08.03.2016 seeking the respondent to give six installments to make the payment of -4- arrears contribution but has not heeded to the same and filed an appeal before the Employees Provident Funds Appellate Tribunal at New Delhi on 18.03.2016 and subsequently filed a writ petition No.17000/2016 before the Delhi High Court seeking stay of the order dated 31.05.2012 passed by the respondent under Section 7A of the EPF & MP Act, 1952 till constitution of the Employees' Provident Funds Appellate Tribunal (EPFAT) at Bangalore. Accordingly, after hearing the matter, the Delhi High Court on 31.03.2016 has granted stay of the impugned order dated 31.05.2012.
5. Subsequent to the constitution of the EPFAT Southern Bench, Appeal No. 428 (6)/2016 was transferred to Bangalore Bench. It is noticed that there was a delay of 1400 days in preferring the appeal. Despite the fact that petitioner has requested PF Commissioner to grant some time to deposit the amount, the proceedings dated 31.05.2012 was passed which was challenged before the Appellate Tribunal. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that sufficient reasons are furnished to condone the delay. However, the Tribunal -5- without appreciating the same, rejected the appeal on the ground of delay.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that there is a statutory bar to condone the delay beyond 60 days after the period of 60 days provided therein. In the instant case, there is an enormous delay and therefore, the Tribunal is justified in rejecting the appeal on the ground of delay. The learned counsel for respondent submitted that in similarly placed writ petition Nos. 63222-63224/2016 and connected matters, this Court by order dated 28.02.2018, referring to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd., Vs., Gujarat Energy Transmission Corporation Ltd., and Others reported in (2017) 5 SCC 42, held at para -15 which reads as under:
" 15. The Act is a special legislation within the meaning of Section 29(2) of the Limitation Act and, therefore, the prescription with regard to the limitation has to be the binding effect and the same has to be followed regard being had to its mandatory nature. To put it in a different way, the prescription of limitation in a case of present nature, when the statute commands that this Court -6- may condone the further delay not beyond 60 days, it would come within the ambit and sweep of the provisions and policy of legislation. It is equivalent to Section 3 of the Limitation Act. Therefore, it is uncondonable and it cannot be condoned taking recourse to Article 142 of the Constitution."
In the light of the above decision, since the delay is beyond the condonable period, the rejection of the appeal by the Appellate Authority on the ground of delay is sound and proper. Hence, no grounds for interference by this Court.
Accordingly, appeal is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE BVK