CGIT Jabalpur Judgment dated 09.09.2026 passed u/s 14B and 7Q of the Act in EPFA/134/2017 Progressive education Society vs RPFC on 9 September 2026

JUDGMENT

(Passed on 09th day of September, 2026)

The present appeal has been filed by the Appellant Establishment against order of the Respondent Authority under Section 14B and 7Q passed on 05.08.2014 of the Employees Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’. There are two separate orders, one under Section 14B and other is under Section 7Q of the Act, though passed on a composite notice and composite enquiry.

The Respondent Authority has filed its counter which is on record.

I have heard arguments of Learned Counsel Mr. Anand Bhusan Sahu for Appellant Establishment and Mr. Harshit Patel

Learned Counsel for the Respondent Authority and I have gone through the record.

There is on record a preliminary submission from the side of Respondent Authority that the Appeal is barred by limitation as the impugned order was passed on 17.10.2014 whereas the Appeal was filed on 11.03.2015, hence beyond the period of limitation and extended period of limitation as provided under Section 7 of the EPFA Appellate Tribunal Procedure Rules, 1997 (in short the “Rules”). There is no application seeking condonation of delay.

Also, it comes out from perusal of record that application seeking condonation of delay has been filed from the side of Appellant only on 01.07.2026, whereas the appeal itself was filed on 11.03.2015. Respondent side has filed written objections against the said application.

Though the Learned Counsel for Appellant Establishment has submitted on the merits of the appeal but since the appeal has been filed beyond the period of limitation as provided under the Rules, hence the preliminary objection from the side of Respondent Authority with respect to maintainability of the present appeal on the ground of been barred by limitation and the application seeking condonation of delay in filing this appeal is required to be decided first. As it comes out from the report of Registry that the appeal was filed on 11.03.2015,whereas the order under appeal has been passed on 17.10.2014 hence it is beyond the period of limitation of 60 days and additional period of another 60 days as mentioned in Rule 7(2) of The Employees' Provident Funds Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1997 (hereinafter referred to by the word ‘Rules’) being reproduced as follows:- “Any person aggrieved by a notification issued by the Central Government or an order passed by the Central Government or any other authority under the Act, may within 60 days from the date of issue of the notification/order, prefer an appeal to the Tribunal: Provided that the Tribunal may if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from

preferring the appeal within the prescribed period, extend the said period by a further period of 60 days”.

Grounds taken by the Appellant Establishment in their Application for Condonation of delay in filing appeal as mentioned in application and accompanying affidavit are mainly that the plea of limitation has been raised by Respondent Authority at late stage, it is a mixed question of law and fact. The appellant Establishment came to know about the order under appeal only in February, 2015. The Learned Counsel also submits that matters should be decided preferably on merits and not to be thrown out on technical grounds. Learned Counsel further submits that the delays not deliberate, rather it is bona fide and the appeal is delayed only by a month from the extended period of limitation. He also submits that it is in the interest of justice, that the delay is condoned and the matter is decided on merits.

Learned Counsel for Appellant Establishment has referred to a Single bench judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in W.P.(C) No. 6759/2010 Rajasthan Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Vs. RPFC in support of his arguments. Learned Counsel for the Appellant Establishment has also referred to following judgments in this respect :

1. Ramesh B. Desai & Ors. Vs. Bipin Vadilal Mehta & Ors. (2006) 5 SCC 638.

2. Ittyavira Mathai Vs. Varkey Vakey & Anr. 1963 SCC Online SC 200.

3. Banarsi Das & Anr. Vs. Kanshi ram & Ors. 1962 SCC Online SC 90.. Learned Counsel for the Respondent Authority has opposed the Application for Condonation of delay with an argument that because the Act and the Rules provides special provisions with respect to limitation, the special law in this respect as mentioned in the Act, shall prevail over the general law with respect to limitation in Limitation Act. Learned Counsel has also submitted that this is not a fit case where delay could be condoned. He also submits that there is nothing to substantiate the ground taken that the appellant establishment came to know about the impugned order only in February, 2015. Rule 7(2) has been reproduced earlier which provides the limitation of 60 days with extended period of 60 days for filing

appeal against any order under the Act. Since, there is a special provision with respect to limitation provided in the Act and Rules, they will prevail over the general law with respect to the limitation. Learned Counsel for Respondent Authority has referred to judgment of Hon’ble High Court of M.P. at Jabalpur in W.P. No. 5799/2024 in the case of Mani Makers Research Pvt. Ltd. v/s RPFC and another Division Bench judgment of Hon’ble High Court of M.P. at Jabalpur in W.A. No. 1089/2024 in which the judgment of Single Bench holding that general principles of Limitation Act will not apply in appeals under the Act, has been affirmed. This Tribunal is under judicial superintendence of Hon’ble High Court of M.P., hence is bound by the law declared in this respect by Hon’ble High Court of M.P. in Single Bench and approved by Division Bench as referred to above. From the aforesaid judgment, this point of law is settled now that limitation in case in hand will be guided by Rule 7(2) and not by Limitation Act. It is to be mentioned herein that the Act does not provide an appeal against order under Section 7(Q) of the Act, hence no appeal is maintainable against order under Section 7(Q) before this Tribunal. In light of above discussion and findings, the Application for Condonation of delay is held sans merit and is dismissed. Consequently, the present appeal is dismissed without considering its merits as barred by limitation.

Date:- 09/09/2026

P.K. SRIVASTAVA (PRESIDING OFFICER)

Judgment Signed, dated and pronounced.

Date:- 09/09/2026

P.K. SRIVASTAVA

(PRESIDING OFFICER)