Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, M/s Balaji Ginning Factory, challenged an order dated 25.09.2014 passed under Section 7A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (the Act) by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Akola. The petitioner had initially filed an application under Section 7A(4) of the Act to set aside the ex parte order, which was rejected on 18.11.2014. The petitioner did not file an appeal under Section 7I of the Act within the prescribed period and instead filed the present writ petition on 16.03.2016. The petitioner's counsel argued that due to illness of the petitioner's parents and medical treatment of his son, the appeal could not be filed in time. It was also contended that the impugned order was vitiated as the beneficiary employees were not identified, relying on an order in Public Interest Litigation No.1/2019 and the Calcutta High Court decision in C.D. Steel Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner. The petitioner further relied on Rule 21 of the Employees' Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1997, and decisions in Shirpur Shetkari Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and Shri Gurudeo Ayurved Mahavidyalaya v. Madhav Narayan Mahakode, to argue that the petition could be entertained with conditions. The respondent opposed the petition on the ground of alternative remedy. The High Court, after hearing both sides, held that the petitioner had an efficacious alternative remedy of appeal under Section 7I of the Act, and the reasons given for not availing the remedy were not sufficient to entertain the writ petition. The court dismissed the petition, leaving it open to the petitioner to avail the statutory remedy in accordance with law.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Alternative Remedy - The High Court declined to entertain a writ petition challenging an order under Section 7A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, as the petitioner had an efficacious alternative remedy of appeal under Section 7I of the said Act. The court held that mere personal difficulties of the petitioner, such as illness of parents and medical treatment of son, do not constitute exceptional circumstances to bypass the statutory remedy. (Paras 1-5) B) Employees' Provident Funds - Section 7A - Identification of Beneficiaries - The petitioner argued that the impugned order was vitiated for non-identification of beneficiary employees. However, the court did not examine this contention on merits as the petition was dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative remedy. (Paras 2-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the writ petition challenging an order under Section 7A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 should be entertained when the petitioner has not availed the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 7I of the said Act.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. The petitioner is at liberty to avail the statutory remedy in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Alternative remedy
- Exhaustion of statutory remedy
- Writ jurisdiction
- Section 7A
- Section 7I
- Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act
- 1952
