IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 219 of 2010(B)
1. B.PEETHAMBARAN,PROPRIETOR,BHARAT
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER
... Respondent
2. THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENF FUND
3. EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND APPELLATE
For Petitioner :SRI.LIJOY P.VARGHESE
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice P.N.RAVINDRAN
Dated :05/01/2010
O R D E R
P.N.RAVINDRAN, J.
---------------------------------------
W.P.(C)No.219 of 2010
----------------------------------------
Dated 5th January, 2010
JUDGMENT
The main prayer in this writ petition is for a direction to
the third respondent Appellate Tribunal to take on record the appeal
filed by the petitioner after condoning the delay in filing such appeal.
The pleadings disclose that aggrieved by Ext.P1 order passed by the
second respondent way back on 11.12.2008, the petitioner has filed an
appeal recently before the third respondent Appellate Tribunal. Ext.P1
is an order passed under Section 7A of the Employees’ Provident
Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. Under Section 7I of the
Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 an
appeal lies from an order passed under section 7A of the said Act.
Sub section (2) of Section 7I stipulates that appeal shall be filed in
such form and in such manner and within such time as may be
prescribed by the rules. Rule 7 of the Employees’ Provident Funds
Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1997 stipulates that the appeal
shall be filed within 60 days from the date of issue of the order
appealed against. The delay if any in filing the appeal can be
condoned if the delay does not exceed 60 days. In other words, as per
Rule 7 the Employees’ Provident Funds Appellate Tribunal (Procedure)
WP(C).No.219/2010 2
Rules, 1997, the Appellate Tribunal can entertain an appeal only if it is
one filed within 120 days from the date of issue of the order which is
appealed against.
2. In the instant case, the order appealed against was
passed on 11.12.2008. More than one year has passed thereafter.
The petitioner does not challenge the validity of Rule 7 of the
Employees’ Provident Funds Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules,
1997. In such circumstances, as the Appellate Tribunal is not
empowered to condone the delay of more than 60 days in filing the
appeal, the reliefs prayed for by the petitioner cannot be granted.
This Court has in Thomas Thomas v. Kottayam Municipality (2008
(3) KLT 964) held that exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, this Court cannot compel any authority to act in
excess of the powers conferred on it. The Appellate Tribunal cannot
therefore be directed to condone the delay of more than 60 days in
filing the appeal, entertain the appeal and pass orders thereon.
I accordingly hold that no grounds have been made out to
entertain this writ petition. The writ petition fails and is accordingly
dismissed.
P.N.RAVINDRAN
Judge
TKS