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
