UDAYANATH AUTONOMOUS COLLEGE OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY, ADASPUR, CUTTACK Vs. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, ORISSA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Udayanath Autonomous College of Science & Technology situated at Adaspur in the district of Cuttack files this application challenging the order dated 06.10.2015 passed by the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in ATA No. 1138(10) of 2015 in dismissing the appeal filed against order dated 15.06.2012 passed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Odisha, Bhubaneswar under Section 7A of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short "EPF & MP Act, 1952").

(2.) The factual matrix of the case is that the petitionerUdayanath Autonomous College of Science & Technology is an aided educational institution within the meaning of Section 3(b) of the Orissa Education Act, 1969, which has been assessed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, on an enquiry being caused, and directed to pay a sum of Rs.13,96,260/- for the period 4/10 to 2/12 and a sum of Rs.1,88,987/- towards interest @ 12% per annum as per the provision of Section 7Q of the EPF & MP Act, 1952. Such assessment has been made for payment of dues under Section 7A of the EPF & MP Act, 1952. The said order of assessment was challenged by the petitioner before this Court in WP(C) No.12088 of 2012, which was disposed of finally on 23.07.2015 stating that the order being appealable one the petitioner may prefer an appeal before the appellate tribunal ventilating its grievance. Pursuant to such order, since there was availability of an alternative remedy, the petitioner preferred appeal before the Employees Provident Funds Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi, which was registered as ATA No. 1138(10) of 2015. The appellate tribunal came to hold that the appeal has to be filed before the tribunal within the statutory period and not according to wishes of the petitioner and considering the long delay in filing the appeal dismissed the same without going into its merits on account of barred by limitation.

(3.) Mr. S.Kanungo, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner strenuously urged that when the appeal was preferred before the appellate tribunal, it should have taken into consideration the fact that the delay in filing the appeal was due to pendency of the writ application before this Court and, as such, Section 14 of the Limitation Act will apply for the purpose. The appellate tribunal also failed to appreciate the fact on merit that without considering the applicability of Section 7A of the EPF & MP Act, 1952 the determination has been made by the Provident Fund Commission. He thus submitted that the appellate tribunal could have decided the appeal on merits instead of dismissing the same on the ground of limitation.