The Punjab Sarbat House vs The Regional Provident Fund ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 4904 Cal

   21
09.08.2023
   D.Hira
Court No. 12
                          In The High Court At Calcutta
                           Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
                                  Appellate Side


                                 FMA 3511 of 2014

                           The Punjab Sarbat House
                                    Versus
               The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner & Ors.

                         Ms. Sayani Roy Chowdhury.
                                    ... for the appellant

                         Ms. Aparna Banerjee.
                                    ... for the respondents

The present appeal is filed challenging the

order of the learned Single Judge dated 11.06.2014

in W.P. No. 15174 (W) of 2014. The appellant

challenged the order of Assistant Provident Fund

Commissioner, the respondent no. 2 herein passed

under Section 7A of the Employees Provident Fund

and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 in the writ

petition on the ground that the said order was

passed in violation of principles of natural justice.

Learned Judge considering the materials on

record placed before him by the order dated

11.06.2014 had come to a conclusion that order

under Section 7A of the said Act was passed after

enquiry and materials on record placed by the

authority and statutory appeal is available to the

appellant and dismissed the writ petition.

Against the said order of dismissal the

appellant has come out with the present appeal.

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant

contended that learned Judge failed to see that

order impugned in the writ petition passed by the

respondent no. 2 is arbitrary, illegal and violation

of natural justice. When principles of natural

justice is violated the writ petition is maintainable

in spite of the availability of the statutory appeal.

During enquiry the authority has passed the

impugned order based on the report of the officers

of the respondents.

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant

further submitted that the partner of the appellant

was not heard properly though opportunity was

given by the authority. He was not allowed to put

forth his case. In violation of natural justice the

appellant is entitled to invoke the writ jurisdiction

and prayed for allowing the appeal.

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for

the respondents submitted that impugned order

was passed after enquiry and after giving

reasonable opportunity to the appellant, the

authority considering the materials on record and

based on the enquiry passed the order. The

appellant has effective alternative remedy by way of

appeal and the reasons given by the appellant for

non-availing the alternative remedy and approach

this Court is not correct.

Learned Judge appreciated the entire

materials and dismissed the writ petition and

prayed for dismissal of the appeal.

Heard Ms. Sayani Roy Chowdhury, learned

counsel appearing for the appellant and Ms.

Aparna Banerjee, learned counsel appearing for

the respondents and perused the entire materials

on record.

From the materials on record it is seen that

the appellant challenged the order passed under

Section 7A of the said Act by the respondent no. 2.

It is an admitted fact that the alternative remedy of

appeal is available to the appellant to challenge the

said order. It is no doubt true when the order is

passed without jurisdiction or in violation of

principles of natural justice, the Court can

interfere when the writ petition is filed without

availing the alternative remedy.

In the present case, learned Judgge took

note of the fact that the impugned order in the writ

petition is passed after enquiry and based on the

materials on record.

Learned Judge distinguished the judgments

relied on by the counsel of appellant and rightly

dismissed the writ petition.

The contention of the learned counsel for

the appellant is that the case of the appellant was

not considered properly by the authority. The said

contention has to be agitated by the appellant in

the appeal.

considering all the above materials, this

Court is of the view that there is no error in the

order of the learned Judge warranting interference

by this Court.

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant

sought time to file the appeal. In view of the

pendency of the writ petition and the appeal, the

appellant is given three weeks time to file the

appeal. If appeal is filed within the time so granted

by this Court, the appellate authority shall

entertain the appeal and decide the same on

merits.

With these observations, the appeal is

dismissed.

Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if

applied for, be given to the parties on usual

undertaking.

(V.M. Velumani, J.)

(Rai Chattopadhyay, J.)