P.V. Balakrishnan, J

1. This intra-court appeal is filed by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.15160 of 2022, challenging the judgment dated 12.07.2022, dismissing the writ petition.

2. The appellant is a partnership firm engaged in the construction business, and it was registered on 07.08.2012. The appellant establishment is covered under the provisions of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act' for short) with effect from 16.10.2012. On 12.05.2016, the enforcement officer of the EPF Organization conducted an inspection at the appellant's work site and issued Ext.P2 letter directing to produce the accounts book for the period 2012-13 to 2014-15. Accordingly, the appellant produced the records before the enforcement officer. Thereafter, on 13.12.2016, the 1st respondent issued notice to the appellant informing it of the commencement of an enquiry under Section 7A of the Act. On appearance before the 1st respondent, copies of Exts.P3 and P4 inspection reports were given to the appellant, to which Ext.P5 objection was filed. Thereafter, the appellant was served with Ext.P6 order dated 01.06.2018 directing him to pay Rs.4,99,553/- towards contribution for the period from 05/2006 to 05/2016. Since Ext.P6 order suffered from errors apparent on the face of the record, the appellant preferred Ext.P7 review application under Section 7B of the Act. In the meanwhile, when a recovery notice was issued, the appellant approached the 1st respondent by filing Ext.P8 representation dated 03.05.2019, praying that the review petition may be allowed. But, by Ext.P9 letter dated 27.05.2019, the 1st respondent asked the appellant to produce the original receipt in Form No.9, evidencing the filing of the review petition. The appellant's representative appeared before the 1st respondent on 05.06.2019 and apprised him that the review petition has been dropped in a box kept for the purpose and no acknowledgment has been received in respect of the same. But again, the appellant received another recovery notice, and hence, the appellant sent Ext.P10 and Ext.P11 e-mails seeking consideration of his review petition. Since, there was no positive response, the appellant preferred Ext.P12 appeal challenging Ext.P6 order, before the 2nd respondent Tribunal. But the same was dismissed as per Ext.P13 order dated 31.03.2022, stating that it is filed beyond the period of limitation. It is in such circumstances, challenging Exts.P6 and P13, the appellant filed the afore writ petition.

3. The learned Single Judge after considering the materials on record and hearing both sides, dismissed the writ petition.

4. Heard Adv. P. Ramakrishnan, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Adv. S. Prasanth, the learned Standing Counsel for the Employees Provident Fund Organization.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that, since the establishment had commenced operation only from the year 2012, Ext.P6 order assessing the liability for a period from 2006 onwards, cannot be sustained. He also submitted that even though, the appellant had filed Ext.P7 review against Ext.P6 order on 09.07.2018 itself, the 1st respondent proceeded with the recovery, by stating that the same has not been received in his office.  He  contended  that  even  though  the  appellant  has fervently requested the 1st respondent to take a call on Ext.P7 review petition, by making Exts.P8, P10 and P11 representations, nothing turned out, and the appellant was constrained to file Ext.P12 appeal before the 2nd respondent, which was dismissed on the ground of limitation. He argued that it is only because of the fact that the appellant was pursuing the review petition, the delay had occurred in filing the appeal, and therefore, the appellate authority ought to have granted the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act to the appellant.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent supported the impugned judgment and contended that there are no grounds to interfere with the same. He argued that the reason stated by the appellant that it is because of the filing of the review petition, the appeal was not filed in time, is nothing but false. He submitted that there is no proof at all to show that a review as alleged, has been filed by the appellant. He further submitted that even after knowing that the review petition had not been received by the respondent as early as on 27.05.2019, the appellant filed the appeal only in January 2022 and the same itself reflects lack of bona fide. He argued that the appellant has not raised any contention before the 1st respondent that the establishment has commenced functioning from 2012 only and the said contention is only an afterthought projected in the guise of a non-existent review petition.

7. On an anxious consideration of the rival submissions and the materials on record, we are of the view that there is no merit in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant. The only grievance of the appellant is that even though the appellant establishment commenced functioning from 2012, the liability has been fixed as per Ext.P6, from 2006 onwards. But a perusal of Ext.P5 objection filed by the appellant to Ext.P4 calculation, would show that no such ground has been taken by the appellant before the 1st respondent. It is the case of the appellant that such a contention was taken in Ext.P7 review application filed seeking review of Ext.P6 order fixing the liability; the existence of which is disputed by the 1st respondent. It is to be taken note that the appellant has not produced any material to show that, it has in fact,filed Ext.P7 review application before the 1st respondent. It is also pertinent to note that even though, as per Ext.P9 letter dated 27.05.2019, the appellant was asked by the 1st respondent to submit the original receipt of Form No.9 on or before 05.06.2019, the same has not been done. It is true that, as per Exts.P10 and P11, the appellant has addressed the 1st respondent that it has not received the acknowledgment of the filled Form No.9. But, we are of the view that the same will not in any manner help the appellant to establish that Ext.P7 has, in fact been filed on 09.07.2018 itself.

8. It is the case of the appellant that when nothing happened to Exts.P10 and P11 representations, Ext.P12 appeal came to be filed before the 2nd respondent. As stated earlier, Ext.P12 appeal has been dismissed by Ext.P13 order dated 31.03.2022, after finding that the appeal is barred by limitation. There is no dispute that the Appellate Tribunal cannot condone a delay beyond 120 days and that Section 5 of the Limitation Act is not applicable. Ext.P6 order which is challenged in Ext.P12 appeal, was passed as early as on 12.06.2018 and Ext.P12 appeal has been filed only in January 2022, admittedly beyond the period of limitation. The contention of the appellant that it is only becasue of the fact that it was pursuing the review petition; the delay in filing the appeal had occurred cannot be accepted, in the light of our afore finding that there are no materials to prove the filing of the review application, as alleged.

9. If so, in the light of the afore discussions, we do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge.

                  Ergo, we find no merit in this writ appeal, and the same is accordingly dismissed.