JUDGMENT : S.N. Prasad, J. 1. This writ petition is against the order dated 25.7.2005 passed in A.T.A. No. 169(10) of 2004 by the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal whereby and where under the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been dismissed and also to quash Annexure-4 which is an order passed U/s.7A of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and to permit the petitioner to produce all the necessary documents to complete the 7A proceeding under Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. 2. The brief fact of the case of the petitioner is that the petitioner being a Dental College established in the State of Orissa situated at Bhubaneswar started admitting students for the academic session 1998-99. The Enforcement Officer of the Employees Provident Fund Organization issued a notice to produce several documents fixing the date of hearing as 10.4.1999. However, without verification of the document the petitioner- establishment was covered under the purview of the Act w.e.f.16.1.1998 and it was allotted Code No.OR/5695. On the basis of an anonymous letter, a proceeding U/s.7A of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act 1952) was initiated and an order was passed by the authority U/s.7a of the Act. According to the petitioner the order passed U/s.7A was an ex-parte order, hence an application U/s.7(A)(4) of the Act, 1952 was filed to set aside the ex-parte order which was disposed of vide order dated 15.10.2003, but however, the prayer of the petitioner was rejected. The petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 6.6.2003 passed U/s.7A had filed writ petition being W.P.(C) No.8551 of 2003 and while the writ petition was pending before this court, an appeal was also preferred before the Appellate Tribunal being A.T.A. No.169(10) of 2004 on 10.3.2004. While the appeal was pending, writ petition being W.P.(C) No.8551 of 2003 was dismissed vide order dated 22.3.2004. While the appeal was pending before the Tribunal a summon was issued by the Recovery Officer whereby and where under the petitioner was informed that a certificate case being C.C. No.73 of 2004 has been initiated against the petitioner for recovery of Rs.32,20,169/- as assessed U/s.7A proceeding. While the appeal was pending before the Tribunal a summon was issued by the Recovery Officer whereby and where under the petitioner was informed that a certificate case being C.C. No.73 of 2004 has been initiated against the petitioner for recovery of Rs.32,20,169/- as assessed U/s.7A proceeding. The petitioner having no option had again moved this court vide writ petition being W.P.(C) No.13681 of 2004, since the appeal could not be admitted as no Presiding Officer was appointed in the Appellate Tribunal, hence this court vide order dated 21.12.2004 stayed the further proceeding of certificate case on payment of Rs.2 lakhs and the writ petition was subsequently been withdrawn vide order dated 28.2.2005 after the Presiding Officer of the Appellate Tribunal was appointed. The Appellate Tribunal has not condoned the delay in view of provision of Sub-Rule-(2) of Rule 7 of the E.P.F. Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1997 vide order dated 25.7.2005 and dismissed the appeal, being aggrieved the petitioner is before this court by way of this writ petition. 3. Learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the proceeding U/s.7A of the Act was an ex-parte order since he has not been provided with an opportunity of being heard, however he has filed an application for recall of the ex-parte order passed U/s.7A of the Act by making an application U/s.7A(4), however the same has also been rejected. While arguing the case for the petitioner it has been contended that the order passed by the authority U/s.7A of the Act is absolutely mechanical and without application of mind since the same has been passed without considering the fact that the Dental College has not yet started its functioning. 4. Counter affidavit has been filed by the opposite parties, inter-alia therein it has been stated that the petitioner has not come with clean hand from the very beginning before the authority or before this court or before the Tribunal. It has been stated in the counter affidavit that the order U/s.7A of the Act, 1952 has been passed having been given due opportunity of being heard and after examining all the documents available on record and also the interest has been determined as per the provision as contained in the provision U/s.7Q of the Act, 1952. It has been stated in the counter affidavit that the order U/s.7A of the Act, 1952 has been passed having been given due opportunity of being heard and after examining all the documents available on record and also the interest has been determined as per the provision as contained in the provision U/s.7Q of the Act, 1952. The petitioner instead of filing statutory appeal against the order passed U/s.7A of the Act, has filed writ petition before this court being W.P.(C) No.8551 of 2003 and while the writ petition was pending, the petitioner without taking leave from this court had filed an appeal before the Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal on 10.2.2004. This court after hearing the petitioner on merit has dismissed the writ petition vide order dated 22.3.2004 observing therein that the petitioner has not come out with clean hand inasmuch as, though on number of dates, opportunities were given to him to put forth its case, on the same plea or other the petitioner avoided, hence the writ petition was dismissed. The petitioner had not informed this court on 22.3.2004 that at the time of passing of the order in the writ petition about pendency of the statutory appeal before the Tribunal which was filed on 10.3.2004, thereby mislead this court. The other fact as stated by the authorities against the petitioner that before Tribunal while filing an appeal making prayer to condone the delay of 80days, while actually there was delay of 145 days, hence the Tribunal has refused to condone the delay. After the order having been passed by the Tribunal this writ petition has been filed. It has been stated that there is no infirmity in the assessment order passed by the authority U/s.7A since the very Act is applicable to the petitioner – establishment. So far as the order regarding not condoning the delay by the Tribunal, it has been submitted that there is no infirmity in the same. It has further been contended that the Appellate Tribunal has not dismissed the appeal only on the ground of limitation but also on merit. 5. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the documents on record. It has further been contended that the Appellate Tribunal has not dismissed the appeal only on the ground of limitation but also on merit. 5. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the documents on record. Before appreciating the arguments advanced on behalf of the learned counsels for the parties it is relevant to quote certain provisions of the Act, 1952, i.e. the provision of appeal which has been provided under section 7-I of the Act, 1952 and the Rule 7 of the Employees Provident Funds Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1997, they are as follows:- Section 7-I of the Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 “7-I. Appeals to Tribunal – (1) Any person aggrieved by a notification issued by the Central Government, or an order passed by the Central Government or any authority, under the proviso to sub-section (3), or sub-section (4) of Section 1, or Section 3, or sub-section (1) of Section 7-A, or Section 7B or Section 7C, or section 14B, may prefer an appeal to a Tribunal against such notification or order. (2) Every appeal under sub-section (1) shall be filed in such form and manner, within such time and be accompanied by such fees, as may be prescribed.” Rule 7 of the Employees’ Provident Funds Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1997:- “7. (2) Every appeal under sub-section (1) shall be filed in such form and manner, within such time and be accompanied by such fees, as may be prescribed.” Rule 7 of the Employees’ Provident Funds Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1997:- “7. Fee, time for filing appeal, deposit of amount due on filing appeal.— [(1) Every appeal filed with the Registrar shall be accompanied by a fee of Rupees five hundred to be remitted in the form of Crossed Demand Draft on a nationalized bank in favour of the Registrar of the Tribunal and payable at the main branch of that Bank at the station where the seat of the said Tribunal situate.] (2) Any person aggrieved by a notification issued by the Central Government or an order passed by the Central Government or any other authority under the Act, may within 60 days from the date of issue of the notification / order prefer an appeal to the Tribunal: Provided that the Tribunal may, if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal within the prescribed period, extend the said period by a further period of 60 days: Provided further that no appeal by the employer shall be entertained by a Tribunal unless he has [deposited with the Tribunal a Demand Draft payable in the Fund and bearing] 75 per cent of the amount due from him as determined under section 7A: Provided also that the Tribunal may for reasons to be recorded in writing, waive or reduce the amount to be deposited under section 7-O.” Thus the power of appeal has been vested with the Tribunal with the power to entertain the appeal within 60 days and if the Tribunal is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause in preferring the appeal within the prescribed period, extend the said period by a further period of 60 days. The case of the petitioner here is that being an establishment under the Act, 1952 a proceeding u/s.7A has been initiated and on perusal of the order passed U/s.7A it is evident that one Sri P.K. Das, Manager (Administration) appeared but no record was submitted, thereafter the Principal-in-Charge was appeared who had stated that records have not been received from Head Office, hence the case was adjourned on several dates. Thereafter another representative had appeared, thus ample opportunity was given to the petitioner – establishment. The authorities u/s.7A after hearing the employers representative who had entered their appearance even after their appearance the employer has failed to appear, hence the order has been passed U/s.7A of the Act, 1952 along with an order U/s.7Q. Immediately after the order having been passed, an application U/s.7A(4) was filed which was rejected on the ground that it cannot be said to be ex-parte order because the employer had the knowledge of hearing. The petitioner has filed writ petition before this court being W.P.(C) No.8551 of 2003 which was dismissed vide order dated 22.3.2004, the order passed by this court is being referred herein below: “W.P. (C) No. 8551 of 2003, Order No. 6 dated 22.3.2004: Heard. By order dated 3.2.2004 this Court directed the petitioner to deposit a sum ofRs.12,00,000/- by 15th February, 2004 and granted stay in respect of the balance amount. This order was passed to test the bona fide of the petitioner. The petitioner, however, did not comply with the said order and by order dated 17.2.2004 the order of stay had been vacated. In this writ application the petitioner is challenging the order passed under Section 7A of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 dated 6.6.2003. According to the said Act, an Appeal lies against the impugned order. Even otherwise the petitioner has not come to this Court in clean hands. His conduct before the EPF Authority was also not very clean inasmuch as though on number of dates opportunities were given to him to put forth its case, on the same plea or other the petitioner avoided. I am, therefore, not inclined to entertain this writ application and the same is dismissed.” While the writ petition was pending before this court an appeal has also been filed before the Appellate Tribunal being ATA Case No.169(10) of 2004 but without disclosing the same to this court or to the Tribunal and thereafter Tribunal after taking into consideration the point of limitation as also the conduct of the petitioner has rejected the appeal. The learned Sr. The learned Sr. Counsel appearing the petitioner has taken three grounds in assailing the order passed by the Tribunal, they are (i) the learned Tribunal has not justified in rejecting the appeal on the ground of limitation, (ii) the Learned Tribunal has odd in passing an order dismissing the appeal without appreciating the material available on record, and (iii) the petitioner has been prejudiced by an order which has been passed U/s.7A without providing an opportunity of being heard. So far as the point no. (i) is concerned, the provision as contained in Rule 7(2) of the Employees Provident Funds Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1997 which provides a condition for filing an appeal within a period of 60 days and if the Tribunal will be satisfied that the appellant has been prevented due to sufficient reason in filing an appeal, the delay can be condoned for a further period of 60 days. From perusal of Rule-7(2) of the Employees Provident Funds Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1997 it is evident that the limitation as provided has specific statute providing certain period of limitation for filing an application there under and provides in clear terms that such period on sufficient cause being shown may be extended only up to a specific time limit and no further. In this respect judgment rendered in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. In this respect judgment rendered in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax Vs. Parson Tools and Plant, 35 STC 413 Honble Apex Court pointed out as under:- “Thus the principle that emerges is that if the legislature in a special statute prescribes a certain period of limitation for filing a particular application there under and provides in clear terms that such period on sufficient cause being shown, may be extended, in the maximum, only up to a specified time limit and no further, then the tribunal concerned has no jurisdiction to treat within limitation, an application filed before it beyond such maximum time limit specified in the statute, by excluding the time spent in prosecuting in good faith and due diligence any prior proceeding on the analogy of Section 14(2) of the Limitation Act.” Since the learned Tribunal has been conferred with the power to adjudicate the appeal as provided U/s.7I of the Act, 1952 and as such the Tribunal is supposed to pass an order strictly in accordance with the provision of the Act, 1952 and such order has been passed by the learned Tribunal by not condoning the delay which is beyond the period as prescribed under Rule 7(2) of the Employees Provident Funds Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1997. Hence the learned Tribunal has not committed any error. 6. So far as second and third ground are concerned, it is evident from the order passed U/s.7A of the Act, 1952 that the petitioner – establishment after putting its appearance has not chosen to cooperate the authority and as such the order has been passed which shows the conduct of the petitioner – establishment that they in one way or the other had wanted to flout the statutory provision and the authority having no option has ultimately passed an order U/s.7A. An application U/s.7A(4) was filed but the same has been rejected on the ground that the order passed U/s.7A is not an ex-parte order rather the petitioner – establishment has chosen not to appear. The petitioner thereafter has filed writ petition before this court suppressing material facts regarding no opportunity having been provided, but this court has taken the conduct of the petitioner in not cooperating the authority seriously and has made an observation which has been quoted herein above regarding the conduct of the petitioner and accordingly the writ petition was dismissed. The petitioner thereafter has filed writ petition before this court suppressing material facts regarding no opportunity having been provided, but this court has taken the conduct of the petitioner in not cooperating the authority seriously and has made an observation which has been quoted herein above regarding the conduct of the petitioner and accordingly the writ petition was dismissed. Not only that, when the writ petition was pending before this court, an appeal was filed before the learned Tribunal without taking leave of the court or without withdrawing the writ petition and as such the petitioner has suppressed material facts. It is settled that litigant who is approaching the writ jurisdiction conferred under Art.226 of the Constitution of India is supposed to come out with a clean hand and without suppression of material facts, reference in this respect is necessary to be made to the judgments rendered by Honble Apex Court in the case of Prestige Lights Ltd. Vs. State Bank of India, (2007) 8 SCC 449 and K.D. Sharma Vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Others, 2008 12 SCC 481 wherein their Lordships have held that writ petition cannot entertained in case of suppression of material facts. Learned Tribunal after taking into consideration this aspect of the matter and considering the conduct of the petitioner has dismissed the appeal. Now the order of appeal is under challenge by seeking direction to allow the petitioner to produce the relevant document before the authority who has decided 7A proceeding. If this would be allowed, the order passed U/s.7A (4) will be said to be recalled by this court while the said order is not under challenge. Further if this prayer would be allowed the order passed by this court in W.P. (C) No. 8551 of 2003 will be said to be reviewed since this court has passed order on merit and the said order has not been challenged before any higher forum by the petitioner. When writ petition has been dismissed by this court on merit vide order dated 22.3.2004, the learned Tribunal has got no option but to dismiss the appeal and accordingly the appeal was dismissed, meaning thereby that the dismissal of the appeal was not only on the basis of limitation but also on merit, i.e. after perusing the order of this Court wherein petition has been dismissed on merit. Now if at this stage the order passed by the Appellate Authority would be reversed, it would amount to reviewing the order passed by this court in W.P. (C) No. 8551 of 2003 vide order dated 22.3.2004, which will not be proper and justifiable since the order which has been passed on 22.3.2004 under writ jurisdiction having attained its finality, that has been taken note by the Appellate Tribunal and reversing the order of Tribunal will indirectly result in review of the order passed by this court in W.P. (C) No. 8551 of 2003. Accordingly and for the foregoing reasons I find no merit in this writ petition, hence dismissed.