LA PROVIDENCE SYSTEMS Vs. EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard M/s. Gupta and Ravi, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. V.Sundareswaran, Learned Standing Counsel for the Respondent, and perused the materials placed on record, apart from the pleadings of the parties.

(2.) The Respondent by order No. TN/85398/D-25/MAS/PDC-NORTH/2018 dated 24.08.2018 had levied penal damages under Section 14-B with interest under Section 7-Q of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) against the Petitioner, who received the copy of that order on 14.09.2018. The Petitioner was entitled to prefer appeal against that order under Section 7-I of the Act within a period of 60 days from the date of its receipt in terms of Rule 7(2) of the Employees' Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1997, before the Appellate Authority, who has been empowered to condone delay in filing such appeal for an extended period of 60 days, if sufficient cause for not preferring appeal within that period is made out. However, the Petitioner did not prefer any such appeal before the Appellate Authority, but has instead filed this Writ Petition on 29.03.2019 challenging the order passed by the Respondent beyond the maximum limitation period of 120 days from the date of receipt of copy of that order.

(3.) The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada v. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited (Order dated 06.05.2020 in Civil Appeal No. 2413 of 2020) has emphatically laid down that the High Court in the exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India ought not to entertain Writ Petition assailing the order passed by a Statutory Authority which was not appealed against within the maximum period of limitation before the concerned Appellate Authority. In view of that legal position, it is not possible to entertain this Writ Petition challenging the order of the First Respondent.