Time barred appeals can not be entertained under Article 226 by High Court

Time barred appeals can not be entertained under Article 226 by High Court

ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
ABCAUS 1115 (2017) (02) HC

Important Case Laws Cited/relied upon:
Commissioner of Custom and Central Excise v. Hango Indian Pvt. Limited
M/s Hindustan Times vs. Union of India
Panopharma vs. UOI  

Brief Facts of the Case:
The petitioner was a private limited company and was an employer within the meaning of Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (The Act). The company was running into heavy losses continuously for many years. Ultimately the company was locked. During the relavnt period even the salary of the employees for approximately three years were paid after availing loans from various financial agencies. In view of the above, the petitioner company was not able to pay EPF Contribution for two years within the stipulated time.

Consequently, Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (“Respondent”) initiated proceedings against the petitioner company for the realisation of damages with interest. Aggrieved by the notice, the company preferred Memorandum of Appeal and petition for condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the Employee Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal). However the Tribunal rejected the same observing that the appeal was filed after the expiry of statutory period.

Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, the company challenged the order of the Tribunal before the High Court.

Observations made by the High Court:
The Hon’ble High Court observed that in an earlier judgment it had dealt with the question whether the fact that a party whose remedy by way of appeal, under Statute is barred by the period prescribed thereunder, is a reason by itself, to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The Court observed that it was not the case of the petitioner company that the proceedings were initiated in violation of the Statute or principles of natural justice. Also it was not a case that the statutory remedy was not effective. Further there was no infringement of fundamental right.

In view of the above the Court opined that when the appeal was dismissed, as barred by limitation, the Court also could not entertain the appeal under Article 226, in a different way.

Held:
The Hon’ble High Court declined the jurisdiction and the petition was dismissed.