( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO. 9140 OF 2010 Dr. Baburao Bapuji Tanpure Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., Shri Shivaji Nagar, Taluka : Rahuri, District : Ahmednagar, Through its Managing Director, Bhagchand s/o. Bhivsan Pawar, Age : 50 years, Occupation : Service, R/o. Rahuri Factory, Taluka : Rahuri, District : Ahmednagar. .. Petitioner. versus 1. The Asstt. Provident Fund Commissioner, Sub-Regional Office, Nasik, Maharashtra. .. Respondent no.1. 2. The Presiding Officer, Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, .. Respondent no.2 New Delhi. deleted. ....................... ( 2 ) Mr. R.R. Karpe, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. K.B. Chaudhary, Standing Counsel, for respondent no.1. Respondent no.2 deleted. ........................ CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 19TH JANUARY 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Taken up for final hearing by consent of parties. The relevant legislation is the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. 2. The matter was heard on earlier occasion and thereafter adjourned till today. Today, Mr. R.R. Karpe, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, has produced compilation of seven judgments to substantiate his argument, that unless and until applicability of provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, is expressly ruled out, the inference of absence of power or bar to condone delay cannot be drawn. In the alternative and without prejudice to the said contention, the ( 3 ) learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner states that the matter normally would have been taken at New Delhi by the respondent. However, as per notice received on 3-2-2009, it was listed at Goa. It was scheduled on 10-2-2009 at Goa. The Counsel for the petitioner at New Delhi was not in a position to attend at Goa and hence adjournment application was moved. It was very first date of hearing but then, ignoring that application and reasons mentioned therein, the appeal was dismissed. After getting knowledge of that dismissal, as per communication dated 25th July 2009, the petitioner instructed its Counsel at New Delhi to take further appropriate steps. Accordingly, an application for restoration was moved and that application has been rejected on 17th November 2009 after noticing that the Appellate Tribunal could have condoned delay only up to the period of 60 days after expiry of limitation and it has no jurisdiction to look into any delay beyond the said period. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner further states that while dismissing this application, the EPF Appellate Tribunal has not mentioned the relevant provision of EPF (Tribunal) Rules. According to him, consideration should have been only under Rule 15 thereof. 3. Mr. K.B. Chaudhary, learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.1, on the other hand, has contended that sitting at ( 4 ) Goa was scheduled since long and as the petitioner did not remain present, the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the appeal. There is no jurisdictional error perversity. He further states that when relevant rules provide limitation of 30 days for restoration and provisions of Rule 7(2) expressly restrict power to condone delay till 60 days, the view taken by the Appellate Tribunal in the impugned order dated 17-11-2009 does not call for any interference. 4. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has placed reliance upon various judgments to buttress his contention about application of Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act. In the light of the judgment of the Honourable Apex Court reported at 2009(5) SCC 791, in the case of Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise Vs. Hongo India Private Limited and another, I do not find it necessary to consider the authorities relied upon by the petitioner, at least here, and the said issue is left open for consideration in other appropriate case. 5. This Court can always in writ jurisdiction find out whether there was just and sufficient reason for absence of the petitioner in the matter and to condone delay. The remedy of filing appeal under Section 7I was resorted to by it and during ( 5 ) the pendency of the appeal, they were permitted to deposit 50 % of the amount. Here, inability of Counsel to attend the Tribunal at Goa was also communicated. Immediately after getting knowledge of dismissal on that day, Counsel at New Delhi was instructed to file proper application and he was also paid. Then application for restoration has been moved. In this situation, I do not find any mala fides on their part. The Tribunal has taken recourse to limitation provided for filing appeal and outer limit for condonation of delay prescribed therefor under Rule 7(2) of the EPF Rules. Though learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.1 has tried to urge that this recourse is not legal and valid, I have left the question open for adjudication in more appropriate matter. Though there is some delay in filing that application, it is not fatal. 6. Here, as I find that there was just and valid excuse for non-appearance of the petitioner at Goa on 10-2-2009, the prayer made for restoration is granted. 7. In the result, the petition is allowed. (i) The impugned order dated 10th February 2009, passed by the Presiding Officer of the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, Camp Court at Goa, in Appeal No. ATA No. ( 6 ) 655(9) 2005, is quashed and set aside. So also, the impugned order dated 17th November 2009, thereby rejecting the application for restoration, is quashed and set aside. The appeal filed by the petitioner is restored to the file of Employees' Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal at New Delhi for its adjudication and decision in accordance with law. (ii) In view of restoration of appeal, ad interim relief granted by this Court, vide order dated 5th October 2010, shall continue to operate till the Appellate Tribunal decides the appeal before it. The Appellate Tribunal shall decide the appeal as early as possible and in any case, by 30th April 2011. 8. Rule is made absolute accordingly. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/wp9140