A writ petition by the Indian Agricultural Research Institute, Wellington, Nilgiris, challenging an April 13, 2010, order of the EPF Appellate Tribunal (R-4), holding that Institute's application pleading for restoration of its dismissed appeal has been dismissed by the Madras High Court.

The respondent Tribunal, according to Mr Justice K. Chandru, who heard the petition, had rightly held that the law of limitation had stipulated that such an application should be filed within 30 days. No power vested with the R-4 to extend the time for preferring the application.

The petitioner pleaded for quashing the impugned order, and consequently to forbear the respondent (Regional PF Commissioner, Coimbatore) from taking any proceedings under the EPF Act pending disposal of the appeal on the file of R-4.

Since there was a delay in filing the appeal, a condonation of delay application was also filed. According to petitioner-Institute, its establishment was situated at Wellington, and that consent of HQs was to be taken for attending proceedings. Before the consent could be obtained, the matter was dismissed.

According to the respondents, when an appeal is dismissed for default, under Rule 15 of EPF Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1997, an application could be filed within 30 days, and not thereafter.

The Judge noted that the Tribunal had relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise vs Hongo I. Pvt Ltd (reported in 2009 (5) SCC 791) wherein it was held that in the absence of any clause to condone delay, there was complete exclusion of Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

It was not the case as if the petitioner-Institute was not represented before the Tribunal, the Judge observed. It had engaged a counsel to represent it before the Tribunal in its camp sitting. Notwithstanding dismissal of the application, the petitioner did not file any application within the time period.

The question of application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act was not available as the statutory rule itself prescribed only 30 days. In view of the clear legal provision, the writ petition would stand dismissed, the Judge held.

Related Topics