1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.944 of 2010 Shri Shankar Shetkari Sahakari ..vs.. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Nagpur and anr. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr.M.V.Samarth. Adv. for the petitioner. Mr.A.Parihar Adv. for resp.no.1 and 2. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : SEPTEMBER 3, 2010. Heard Advocate Samarth, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Parihar, learned counsel for the respondents. Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal has refused to condone the delay after noticing that the law permits to condone delay of sixty days and not beyond that. It has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court reported at 2005 Vol.100 CLD Sc 808 (Damodaran Pillai ..vs.. South India Bank Ltd. to find that the provisions of Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act are not applicable. Advocate Shri Samarth has tried to show that challenge to order dated 2/7/2002 is in the light of subsequent order passed under Section 7-C of EPF and MP Act, 1952 on 9/10/2009. He has also urged that order dated 2/7/2002 merges into an order dated 9/10/2009. Shri Parihar has pointed out that in appeal memo or in 2 application for condonation of delay, there is no whisper about challenge to an order dated 9/10/2010. According to him, there is no such order passed by respondent no.1. Perused appeal memo and prayer for condonation of delay. There is no challenge to an order dated 9/10/2009. Application of mind by Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal cannot be said to be erroneous. The issue is settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgment reported at (2009)5 SCC 791 (Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise ..vs.. Hongo India Pvt. Ltd. and anr.). No case is made out for warranting any interference in writ jurisdiction. Writ petition is rejected. No costs. Needless to mention that if there are any other orders which can be assailed as per law by the petitioner, the petitioner is free to take recourse to appropriate remedy. JUDGE Chute