MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL,J. - (1.) The intra Court appeal has been directed against the order dated 07.08.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby, the writ petition preferred by the respondent-petitioner assailing the order dated 10.05.2019 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Jaipur (hereinafter referred as "the Tribunal") dismissing the appeal filed by the respondent under Section 7 of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short "the Act of 1952") as barred by limitation, has been disposed of with directions to the learned Tribunal to hear the matter on merits by condoning the delay.
(2.) Facts in brief as emerge from perusal of the record are that the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Jaipur vide its order dated 14.09.2018 assessed the dues in the tune of Rs. 48,187/- under Section 14-B of the Act of 1952 and a sum of Rs. 54,846/- under Section 7-Q of the Act of 1952 and directed the respondent to deposit the same. The respondent being aggrieved preferred an appeal before the Tribunal, Jaipur, which has been dismissed by the learned Tribunal vide its order dated 10.05.2019 as barred by limitation. The writ petition preferred by the respondent has been disposed of by the learned Single Judge directing the learned Tribunal to decide the matter on merits by condoning the delay.
(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that Rule 7(2) of the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1997 (for short "the Rules of 1997") provides that any person aggrieved by an order passed by any authority under the Act, may file an appeal within 60 days from the date of order and the Tribunal has been given discretion to extend the said period by a further period of 60 days if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal within the period prescribed. He submits that the statute does not prescribe extension of the limitation beyond 120 days and being special legislation, provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act has no applicability. Relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of the Commissioner of Sale Tax, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow v. M/s. Parson Tools and Plants, Kanpur , 1975 AIR(SC) 1039, it was canvassed that this Court, exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India could not have issued directions to condone the delay in violation of the specific statutory provisions.;