2005 (7) TMI 658 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of Rule 7(2) of the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1997.
2. Applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act to appeals under the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952.
3. Determination of dues payable by the Company under Section 7A of the Act.
4. Functional integrity and independence of the NOIDA unit from the Bombay unit of the Company.
5. Condensation of delay in filing appeals before the Tribunal.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Rule 7(2) of the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1997:
The Company challenged Rule 7(2) as ultra vires, arguing it contravenes Section 7-I(2) of the Act by limiting the Tribunal's power to condone delays beyond 60 days. The Court held that the rule-making authority did not exceed its limits by prescribing a specific period for condoning delays. The provision is an enabling one, designed to help litigants facing genuine difficulties, and does not take away the right to appeal but rather facilitates it within a reasonable timeframe. Thus, Rule 7(2) was not deemed ultra vires.

2. Applicability of Section 5 of the Limitation Act to appeals under the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952:
The Tribunal had held that the power to condone delays under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was not curtailed by the Legislature but by the rule-making authority. The Court, however, found that the special statute (the Act) and its rules expressly excluded the application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, as a specific period for condoning delays was provided. The Court emphasized that when a special statute prescribes a specific period of limitation and an extended period for condoning delays, Section 5 of the Limitation Act is excluded.

3. Determination of dues payable by the Company under Section 7A of the Act:
The Assistant Regional Provident Fund Commissioner determined that the NOIDA unit, which commenced production on 30.3.1990, was not entitled to fresh infancy benefits for three years, as such benefits had already been availed by the Company for its Bombay factory. The dues payable by the Company were determined to be Rs. 1,31,411/- for the period from 30.3.1990 to 31.3.1993.

4. Functional integrity and independence of the NOIDA unit from the Bombay unit of the Company:
The Company contended that the NOIDA unit was distinct and separate from the Bombay unit, with no functional integrity between them. The Tribunal agreed, noting that the NOIDA unit had its own distinct staff, manufacturing processes, and financial management. The Tribunal concluded that the NOIDA unit could not be considered a branch or department of the Bombay factory.

5. Condensation of delay in filing appeals before the Tribunal:
The Company filed an appeal 165 days after receiving the order, beyond the 120-day maximum period allowed by the Act and the Rules. The Tribunal initially held that it had jurisdiction to condone any delay if satisfactorily explained, but the Court disagreed, emphasizing that the specific period for condoning delays provided in the Act and the Rules excluded the application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The Court ruled that the Tribunal's decision to condone the delay was incorrect and quashed the Tribunal's order.

Conclusion:
The Court dismissed the petition filed by the Company and allowed the petition filed by the Assistant Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, thereby quashing the Tribunal's order. The Court upheld the validity of Rule 7(2) and affirmed that the specific period for condoning delays provided in the Act and the Rules excluded the application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act.