Telangana High Court
M/ S. Mahanagar Homes Pvt Ltd vs Assistant P.F. Commissioner Civ on 13 February, 2024
Author: Surepalli Nanda
Bench: Surepalli Nanda
HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
WRIT PETITION No.2130 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:
"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-B dated 18-05-2023, and
recovery notice dated 23. 11-2023 as 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-4&2- 2/16663524/53/2023/650 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 M/s.Punj Security and Housekeeping
2 SN,J
W.P.No.2130 OF 2024
Services Private 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.2130 OF 2024
4. Learned Standing Counsel for EPFO, appearing on
behalf of respondents placing reliance on the aforesaid
Judgment dated 01.06.2022 of the High Court of Punjab
and Haryana reported in 2022 Law Suit(P&H) 2553 in
M/s.Punj Security and Housekeeping Services Private
Limited Vs. Employees Provident Fund Organization,
Chandigarh and others (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 present Writ petition.
5. Taking into consideration the view taken by the High
Court of Punjab and Haryana in its Judgment dated
01.06.2022 reported in 2022 Law Suit(P&H) 2553 in
M/s.Punj Security and Housekeeping Services Private
Limited Vs. Employees Provident Fund Organization,
Chandigarh and others and on the 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
4 SN,J
W.P.No.2130 OF 2024
petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal available under
Section 7(A) of the Employees Provident Funds and
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 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 copy of
the present order as stipulated in the present order, the
respondents shall not initiate any coercive steps against
the petitioner in pursuance to the impugned orders of the
respondents dated 07.02.2023, 18.05.2023 and
11.10.2023 respectively. However, 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: 13.02.2024
ksl
5 SN,J
W.P.No.2130 OF 2024
HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA
DATED:13.02.2024
ksl
