Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

M/S Punjab State Civil Supplies ... vs Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner ... on 11 March, 2025

Author: Harsimran Singh Sethi

Bench: Harsimran Singh Sethi

                                      Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:034184




CWP-6719-2025                         -1-


              IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                        AT CHANDIGARH


110                                           CWP-6719-2025
                                              Date of Decision :11.03.2025


M/s Punjab State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd.                ...Petitioner


                                Versus


Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner and others                ...Respondents


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI

Present:    Mr. H.S. Randhawa, Advocate for petitioner-Corporation.

                                      ***

Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral)

1. In the present petition, the grievance being raised by the petitioner-Corporation is that the appeal preferred by the petitioner- Corporation has been rejected by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chandigarh vide order dated 21.08.2023 (Annexure P/3) on the ground of delay.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner-Corporation argues that the delay could have been condoned even if, the same is beyond 120 days.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner-Corporation and have gone through the record with his able assistance.

4. The same question of law came up for consideration before this Court while deciding CWP-1121-2025 titled as Bank of Baroda vs. Union of India and others on 17.02.2025 wherein, it has been held that the 1 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 13-03-2025 06:57:04 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:034184 CWP-6719-2025 -2- Appellate Authority does not have the power to condone the delay beyond 120 days.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner-Corporation has not been able to rebut the said principle of law.

6. Keeping in view the said fact, present petition is also dismissed in terms of CWP-1121-2025 titled as Bank of Baroda vs. Union of India and others, decided on 17.02.2025 keeping in view the findings recorded by this Court.

7. It may be noticed that in the case of Bank of Baroda (supra), a cost has been imposed by this Court but in the present case, no such order is being passed.

March 11, 2025                   (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)
aarti                                     JUDGE
          Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
          Whether reportable :        No




                                      2 of 2
                   ::: Downloaded on - 13-03-2025 06:57:05 :::