GULATI PACKAGING PVT LTD Vs. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND (AT: NAINITAL)
Gulati Packaging Pvt Ltd
ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) Section 7B of the EPF Act authorises review of an order passed under Sub-section (1) of Section 7A of the Act, when no appeal against such an order has been preferred. All orders passed under Sub-section (1) of section 7A of the Act are appealable. Therefore, a person aggrieved by an order passed under Subsection (1) of Section 7A of the Act can prefer an appeal or without preferring an appeal, may file a review application. In the instant case, appellant chose the second option and, accordingly, filed a review application. That review application has been summarily rejected. Against the summary rejection of the review, appellant preferred a writ petition. That writ petition has been dismissed permitting the appellant to file an appeal against the original order passed under Sub-section (1) of Section 7A of the Act, Hence, the present appeal. There cannot be any dispute that an order dismissing a review is not appealable as there is a specific bar in that regard under sub-section (5) of Section 7B of the Act. At the same time, Paragraph 79A of the EPF Scheme provides that no application for review will be entertained unless the application for review is submitted within 45 days from the date of making of the original order under review. In the instant case, the review application was filed beyond 45 days of the making of the original order under review. While Rule 7 of the applicable Rules authorises the Appellate Tribunal to condone delay in preferring an appeal, the said Rule does not authorize an authority, who has passed an order under sub-section (1) of section 7A of the Act, to condone delay in preferring a review application. In the circumstances, Authority, before whom the review application was filed, had no other option but to summarily reject the application for review for if he had accepted the application for review, he would have exceeded his jurisdiction, which has consciously not been granted to him.
(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that Delhi High Court has proceeded in a different manner. We have only read the provisions of the Statute. We have not been shown any provision of the Statute, which authorises the authority to grant extension of time to file a review application. When the law specifically debars the person concerned to accept an application for review beyond 45 days from the date of passing of the original order, the question of entertaining an application for review beyond 45 days does not arise. We, accordingly, find no scope of interference. The appeal fails and the same is dismissed.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.