ACE ENGINEERS Vs. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the Appellate Authority under the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act in EPFA.No.1 of 2021 dtd. 31/10/2022, wherein the writ petitioner herein preferred an appeal as against the order passed under Sec. 7(A) of the E.P.F and M.P. Act, alleging that no notice was served to the petitioner in respect of the proceedings under Sec. 7(A) of the Act and that they claimed to have knowledge about the order passed by the Authority dtd. 7/11/2017 only on 7/12/2020, and thereafter they filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority. But the Appellate Authority, without considering the grounds raised by the petitioner that they had knowledge about the order passed only on 7/12/2020 and dismissed the petition without going into the merits of the case on the point of limitation. Aggrieved by the said order, the present writ petition has been filed.

(2.) According to the writ petitioner, without serving notice to him, the impugned order under Sec. 7(A) of the Act has been passed and he came to know about the order only on 7/12/2020 and thereafter, within 120 days, he filed the Appeal. The Appeal time as per rules 7 (1) can be filed within 60 days from the date of the order and the proviso to Rule 7(2) stipulates that if the Tribunal is satisfied that the appellant prevented from preferring the appeal within 60 days, the Appellate Authority can condone the delay of another 60 days if the reasons stated by the petitioner is acceptable by the Tribunal. However, the limitation period accrues from the date of knowledge of the order and the order passed by the Authority passed under Sec. 7(A) of the Act itself referred that no notice was served to the petitioner and the postal cover returned as "refused " and thereafter, the notice was served upon the erstwhile employee of the petitioner. Therefore, the Authority himself admitted the non-serving of notice to the petitioner. However, the Appellate Authority failed to consider the same and dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation. Therefore, the order passed by the Authority is liable to be set aside.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the respondent would submit that the petitioner belatedly filed the appeal before the Authority. During enquiry proceedings under Sec. 7(A) of the Act they also managed to return the notice and refused to accept the notice and thereafter, the Authorities have served the notice upon erstwhile employee. Thereafter they issued notice under Sec. 8(F) of the Act and after receipt of notice under Sec. 8(F) of the Act, they appeared before the Authority and submitted the letter dtd. 4/12/2020, therefore they had knowledge about the order, even according to this letter on 4/12/2020 itself. Moreover, the petitioner has already paid the entire amount of the quantum fixed by the Authority fixed under Sec. 7(A) of the Act. Therefore, the petitioner has now filed this writ petition alleging that they had no knowledge about the order, and thereby from the date of knowledge, the limitation period would accrues. After serving notice to the erstwhile employee of the petitioner, they came to know about the order passed by the Authority under Sec. 7(A) of the Act. Therefore, only for the purpose of maintaining the appeal, they have taken this plea and have not even produced the documents to substantiate their contention, and therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.