Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, M/s Siddhi Engineering, a factory located in MIDC Waluj, Aurangabad, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) challenging several orders passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II. The impugned orders included an order dated 23/09/2021 passed under Section 7A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (the Act), a certificate under Section 8 of the Act dated 05/04/2022, and a recovery notice dated 29/11/2023 issued by the Recovery Officer. The respondent authority had conducted an inquiry under Section 7A of the Act for the period from May 2016 to May 2019 based on an interim report of the Area Enforcement Officer dated 03/05/2019 and complaints from employees regarding non-payment of provident fund contributions. The petitioner sought quashing of these orders and a stay on recovery proceedings. The court considered the submissions of both sides and noted that the petitioner had an alternative statutory remedy under Section 7I of the Act by way of appeal against the Section 7A order. Additionally, the challenge to the Section 7A order was grossly delayed, as the order was passed on 23/09/2021 and the writ petition was filed in 2023. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada v. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited, (2020) 19 SCC 681, the court held that when the limitation period has expired, even the Supreme Court cannot exercise its plenary powers under Article 142, and consequently, the High Court cannot exercise jurisdiction under Article 226. The court dismissed the writ petition, leaving it open to the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy of appeal under Section 7I of the Act, if permissible in law. The court also clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Alternative Remedy - The High Court declined to entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when the petitioner had an efficacious alternative remedy by way of appeal under Section 7I of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 against the order under Section 7A of the Act. The court held that the existence of an alternative remedy is a bar to the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction, especially when the petitioner has not availed of the same. (Paras 4-6) B) Limitation - Delay and Laches - Challenge to Section 7A Order - The petitioner challenged an order dated 23/09/2021 passed under Section 7A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, by filing a writ petition in 2023. The court, relying on Assistant Commissioner (CT) LTU, Kakinada v. Glaxo Smith Kline Consumer Health Care Limited, (2020) 19 SCC 681, held that when the cause of action cannot be raised due to expiry of limitation, the High Court cannot exercise jurisdiction under Article 226. The petition was dismissed as barred by limitation. (Paras 4-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court should entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when the petitioner has an alternative statutory remedy under Section 7I of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and when the challenge to the Section 7A order is barred by limitation.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. The petitioner is at liberty to avail the alternative remedy of appeal under Section 7I of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, if permissible in law. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Alternative remedy
- Limitation
- Writ jurisdiction
- Section 7A EPF Act
- Section 7I EPF Act
- Article 226 Constitution of India
