Telangana High Court
M/S. Mahanagar Homes Pvt Ltd vs Assistant P.F. Commissioner Civ on 9 January, 2024
Author: Surepalli Nanda
Bench: Surepalli Nanda
HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
WRIT PETITION No.606 OF 2024
ORDER:
Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner and also heard Mr.G.Venkateswarlu, learned Standing counsel for EPFO, appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2.
2. The petitioner approached the Court seeking the prayer as follows:
"For the reasons stated above; it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to Issue an order, direction or writ particularly one in the nature of Mandamus and declare the action of 1st respondent in passing the orders under section 7-A of EPF ACT dated 07-02-2023 and the orders passed under section 7-8 dated 18-05-2023 and illegal and perverse and consequently, to set aside the show cause notice of arrest issued by the 2nd Respondent under section EPF CP 25 bearing No. TSROBKP/comp & legal/10D/C-PDR- 2/1662509 / 53 / 2023 / 651 dated 11-10-2023 as the same is issued contrary to the provisions of EPF act and without giving any opportunity to the petitioner and to allow this writ petition with costs in the interest of justice and equity, otherwise, the petitioner will suffer great hardship and irreparable loss."
3. Mr. G.Venkateswarlu, learned Standing counsel for EPFO, placing reliance upon the Judgment of the High court of Punjab and Haryana reported in 2022 Law Suit(P&H) 2553 in between M/s.Punj Security and Housekeeping Services Private 2 SN,J W.P.No.606 OF 2024 Limited Vs. Employees Provident Fund Organization, Chandigarh and others draws attention of this Court upon the paragraph No.15 of the said Judgment and the same reads as under:
"The counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that after passing of the order of rejection of the review the petitioner has been left totally without remedy; because Section 7B (5) of the EPF Act does not provide any appeal against the order of rejection of review passed by the assessing authority. Therefore, only this court is required to intervene and to set aside such an order in exercise of writ jurisdiction.
However, even this argument of the counsel for the petitioner is found to be non- sustainable. Under the scheme of the EPF Act the assessing authority is required to pass the original assessment order under Section 7A after hearing the parties concerned. That order is made appealable under Section 7-I of the EPF Act. If the petitioner was not satisfied with the order, there was nothing to stop the petitioner from availing the remedy of the appeal; as provided under the above said Section. Hence, he was not remediless. However, he has chosen to file a review. The review has been rejected by the authority finding that no new material has been produced before it. At this stage also the petitioner had the remedy to challenge the original order and raise all the pleas raised by him in the review application. The provision of review is not a remedy 'alternate' to the remedy of appeal. Provision for review is only a lateral enabling provision to bring to the notice of the authority passing the original order; some mistake, new material or the apparent error. Even if the authority rejects the lateral remedy of review; the linear and hierarchical remedy of statutory appeal is always available to a party."
3 SN,J W.P.No.606 OF 2024
4. Learned Standing Counsel for EPFO, appearing on behalf of respondents placing reliance on the aforesaid Judgment of the High court of Punjab and Haryana reported in 2022 Law Suit(P&H) 2553 in between M/s.Punj Security and Housekeeping Services Private Limited Vs. Employees Provident Fund Organization, Chandigarh and others dated 01.06.2022 as referred to and extracted above contends that under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court cannot go into the contentions as put forth by the petitioner and the petitioner has to avail remedy of appeal as provided under the Act and therefore, the interim relief as sought for by the petitioner herein cannot be granted in the Writ petition filed by the petitioner.
5. Taking into consideration the view taken by the High court of Punjab and Haryana in its Judgment reported in 2022 Law Suit(P&H) 2553 in between M/s.Punj Security and Housekeeping Services Private Limited Vs. Employees Provident Fund Organization, Chandigarh and others dated 01.06.2022 and on consent of learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for EPFO appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2, the writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal available to it under Section 7(A) of the Employees Provident Funds and 4 SN,J W.P.No.606 OF 2024 Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and challenge the substantial order passed by the Assessing Officer/1st respondent authority under Section 7A(I)(b) of the Act by approaching competent authority, within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. Till the petitioner avails the remedy of appeal as available to it under Section 7(A) of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, within the period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the order as stipulated in the present order, the respondents shall not initiate any coercive steps against the petitioner in pursuance to the impugned orders issued by the respondents on 07.02.2023, 18.05.2023 and 11.10.2023 respectively.
6. With these observations and with the consent of both the learned counsel on record, the Writ petition is disposed of. However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall also stand closed.
___________________________________ MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA Date: 09.01.2024 ksl