Karnataka High Court
M/S Suvarna Karnataka Broadcasting Ltd vs Regional Provident Fund Commissioner on 28 January, 2020
Author: Aravind Kumar
Bench: Aravind Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2020
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH
WRIT PETITION NO.25089 OF 2019 (L-PF)
Between:
M/s. Suvarna Karnataka Broadcasting Ltd.
No.10/A, Chandrakiran Building
5th Floor, Kasturba Road
Bangalore - 560 001
Represented by its
Ex-Director
Mr. Vithal R. Parasannavar
Aged about 60 years
S/o Rudrappa
Laxmi Nivas
Basavanagar Extension
Gokak - 591 307
(note Petitioner not claiming benefits
of senior citizen)
...Petitioner
(by Sri Manjunatha B, Advocate)
And:
Regional Provident Fund Commissioner
Employees' Provident Fund Organisation
Regional Office
Raja Ram Mohan Roy Road
2
Bengaluru - 560 025
...Respondent
(by Smt. Nalini Venkatesh, Advocate)
This Writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India praying to set aside the order dated
8.5.2019 passed by the EPF Appellate Tribunal cum CGIT,
Bangalore as per Annexure-A in rejecting the appeal on the
ground of limitation; and etc.
This Writ Petition coming on for preliminary hearing in 'B'
Group, this day, ARAVIND KUMAR J., passed the following:
ORDER
The petitioner herein having suffered an order passed under Section 14B of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 by the Respondent, assailed the same before the Appellate Tribunal, viz. CGIT in Appeal No. EPF/ITB/60/2019. Said appeal came to be dismissed by impugned order dated 08th May, 2019 on the ground that appeal is filed beyond the period prescribed under Rule 7(2) of EPFAT Rules, 1952. Hence, the present writ petition.
2. We have heard the arguments of Shri Manjunath, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Smt. Nalini Venkatesh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent and perused the records. It is the contention of Shri Manjunath that 3 no notice was issued to the petitioner before passing the order under 14B of the Act and even otherwise the right to challenge the said order would accrue to the petitioner from the date of the communication or knowledge of said order and when petitioner had no knowledge about said order till 29th March, 2019, i.e. about order passed under Section 14B dated 01st September, 2016, appeal could not have been dismissed on the ground of delay. He would further contend that limitation prescribed under Rule 7(2)(b) of the Rules have to be reckoned from the date of knowledge i.e. 29th March, 2019 and if so reckoned the appeal filed by the petitioner on 11th April, 2019 would be well within the period of limitation. On these grounds, he prays for allowing the writ petition by quashing the impugned order.
3. Per contra, Smt. Nalini Venkatesh learned counsel for the respondent reiterating the statement made in the statement of objections would pray for dismissal of the appeal.
4. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for the parties and on perusal of records, we notice that the period 4 prescribed for filing an appeal under Section 7-I of the Act against an order passed under Section 14B of the Act is governed by Rule 7(2)of Rules whereunder the aggrieved person has to file an appeal within 60 days from the date of issue of the order. In the event of aggrieved person not able to file the appeal within sixty days beyond said date for reasons which was not under his/her control, further time is granted under the proviso, viz. 60 days to file such appeal and necessarily, by showing sufficient cause for delay beyond 60 days up to 120 days. Thus, in all, the aggrieved person will have time for 120 days to file an appeal. In the instant case, the appeal in question was filed on 11th April, 2019. The order which was passed by CGIT/Appellate Tribunal dated 01st September, 2016 has been despatched to petitioner through Registered Post Acknowledgement Due on 02nd September, 2016 and same has been received by the petitioner on 03rd September, 2016 as per postal acknowledgment issued by the postal department. Thus, limitation prescribed for filing appeal, viz. first 60 days, would expire on 02nd November, 2016 and further period of 60 days prescribed under the proviso would expire on 02nd January, 5 2017. Appeal having been filed on 11th April 2019, Tribunal has rightly dismissed the same as not maintainable. As such, question of entertaining the present writ petition does not arise. We make it clear that if the respondent authorities are proceeding against the ex-Directors of the petitioner-Company, they would be at liberty to challenge the said recovery proceedings by initiating appropriate proceedings before appropriate forum and no opinion is expressed in that regard.
SD/-
JUDGE SD/-
JUDGE lnn