BALAJI GINNING FACTORY Vs. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Heard finally with consent of counsel for the parties.

(2.) The challenge raised in the present writ petition is to the order dated 25.09.2014 passed under Section 7-A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short, the said Act). According to the petitioner it had initially filed an application under Section 7-A(4) of the said Act on the ground that the order dated 25.09.2014 was an ex-parte order. That application was rejected on 18.11.2014. The petitioner could not file an appeal under Section 7-I of the said Act within the stipulated period. It therefore has filed the present writ petition on 16.03.2016.

(3.) Shri A. R. Deshpande learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the petitioner has not availed the statutory remedy as prescribed under Section 7-I of the said Act, the facts of the present case are such that the writ petition deserves to be entertained. According to him after the order dated 18.11.2014 was passed under Section 7-A(4) of the said Act, the petitioner's parents were ill and hence the appeal under Section 7-I of the said Act could not filed within the prescribed period. Thereafter his son was required to undergo medical treatment which consumed considerable time. In that view of the matter the petitioner could not avail the statutory remedy under Section 7-I of the said Act and hence the order dated 25.09.2014 was being challenged in the present writ petition. It was submitted that in the impugned order the beneficiary employees had not been identified which aspect vitiates the impugned order. Placing reliance on the order passed in Public Interest Litigation No.1/2019 it was submitted that since there is no identification of the beneficiaries in the impugned order, the same is a good ground to entertain the writ petition. The learned counsel further placed reliance on the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in C.D. Steel Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner and Ors., W.P.9729(W) of 2019 decided on 08.07.2019 and by referring to the provisions of Rule 21 of the Employees' Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1997 urged that proceedings filed beyond the period of limitation could be entertained on merits. He then referred to the decision in Shirpur Shetkari Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. Vs. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner II, Nasik & Anr, 2017 3 AllMR 537 and submitted that the petitioner could be directed to deposit part of the amount adjudicated to test the bonafides of the petitioner. Appropriate conditions could be imposed for entertaining the writ petition. In that regard he also placed reliance on the decision in Shri Gurudeo Ayurved Mahavidyalaya through its Principal & another Vs. Madhav s/o Narayan Mahakode & others, 1995 2 MhLJ 50 and the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Good Wrench Services Vs. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner E P F Organization, 2014 LawSuit(Del) 840. It was thus submitted that the challenges as raised should either be considered by this Court or the petitioner could be permitted to avail the remedy of file any appeal under Section 7-I of the said Act.