In M/s Ansar Stores Vs The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (C & R) & Ors., [W.P. No. 37911 of 2024], the Madras High Court reiterated that a writ Court cannot extend the period of statutory limitation and further that when a statutory appeal is barred by limitation, writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked to challenge orders that are so barred.
CASE SUMMARY
FACTS OF THE CASE:
- The Petitioner suffered an order before the EPF Organization determining EPF contributions due from them under the EPF Act;
- Attachment orders were passed for recovering the sum determined as due since the Petitioner failed to comply with the order passed by the EPF Organization;
- The Petitioner made representations before the EPFO for reliefs including payment by instalments;
- Writ Petition was filed and the Madras High Court directed disposal of the Petitioner’s representation;
- Before the Petitioner’s representations were considered, the Respondents proceeded to freeze the Petitioner’s bank account and a notice was issued by the Enforcement officer of EPF Organization demanding payment due with reference to arrest of the Petitioner. This culminated into the writ petition.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE PETITIONER:
- The Petitioner is not covered by the EPF Act since the organization did not even employ 5 persons;
- The Respondents had wrongly clubbed another business carried on in the same premises to determine contributions payable by the Petitioner under the EPF Act;
- In the earlier writ petition, this order was put to challenge on merits, but while granting the limited relief of directing the EPFO to consider the Petitioner’s representation, it was wrongly recorded that the Petitioner only sought payment by instalments;
- Even the order directing the disposal of the Petitioner’s representation was not complied before proceeding to recover the sum and issuing demand notice seeking payment within 3 days along with a reference to arrest the Petitioner.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS:
- The order determining the EPF contributions payable by the Petitioner has become final since statutory appeal has not been filed within limitation period;
- Consequential order cannot be challenged when the order determining EPF contributions payable by the Petitioner has become final.
DECISION OF THE COURT:
The Writ Petition was disposed of with the following direction:
- Court cannot intervene on merits;
- As per the earlier order directing disposal of Petitioner’s representation, the Respondents shall dispose of the Petitioner’s representation by considering the grievances of the Petitioner within a period of 6 weeks;
- Status quo to be maintained till the order considering Petitioner’s grievance is passed. No further proceedings till such time;
- Order freezing Petitioner’s bank account shall remain in force since the Respondents are entitled to recovery of money.
REASONS CITED:
- The Petitioner ought to have challenged the order determining EPF contribution payable by the Petitioner before the Appellate Tribunal within the statutory limitation period of 60 days or at least within a further 60 days period which the statute permits to be condoned;
- Writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked to extend outer time limit prescribed for statutory appeal. Moreover, an order not subject to statutory appeal within limitation period cannot be challenged in a writ petition after the remedy of appeal is barred by limitation. [CCT Vs Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Healthcare Limited (2020) 19 SCC 681]
Date of the Judgment: 19.12.2024
Counsel for Petitioner: Ms. T.P. Savitha
Counsel for Respondents: Mr. R. Thirunavukarasu
[This is a case summary and not an opinion piece.]
Comments