M/s Vedika Credit Capital Limited, Ranchi v. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Ranchi

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR For the Petitioner: For the Respondents: ----- Mr. Sudarshan Srivastava Mr. Rupesh Singh ----- 03/30.03.2022 The case is taken up through Video Conferencing. Mr. Sudarshan Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that a copy of letter No. 34913 dated 03.03.2022 has been annexed with I.A. No. 2559/2022. Hence, the defect No.5 pointed out by the office may be ignored. Considering the said submission, the defect No.5 pointed out by the office is ignored. So far as the defect No.7 is concerned, the same is also ignored at the request of learned counsel for the petitioner. The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the respondents to show cause as to why and under what circumstance, the instruction for attachment of bank account of the petitioner has been issued during pendency of the review application dated 02.02.2022 filed on behalf of the petitioner and to direct them for disposal of the same. Further prayer has been made for quashing the order as contained in letter No. JH/RO/ RNC/CC/7A/11948/2022/1542-B/31153 dated 21.01.2022 (Anneuxre-1 to the writ petition) issued by the respondent No.2 whereby in exercise of power conferred under Section 7-A of the Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 1952’), the said respondent has quantified the dues of Rs.1,10,24,616/- for the period from 4/2016 to 3/2018. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing letter No. 34913 dated 03.03.2022 issued by the respondent No.2 in exercise of power 2 conferred under Section 8F(3) of the Act, 1952 whereby the bank account of the petitioner has been ordered to be attached as well as for directing the respondents to release the bank account of the petitioner forthwith. The present writ petition was earlier taken up on 14.03.2022 and on the said date, Mr. Rupesh Singh, learned counsel for the respondent-EPFO, had submitted that the review application filed on behalf of the petitioner on

02.02.2022 under Section 7-B of the Act, 1952 was disposed of by the competent authority of the respondent-EPFO on 23.02.2022. Subsequently, the petitioner filed another review application invoking Section 7-B of the Act, 1952 on 04.03.2022, which otherwise was not maintainable. Learned counsel for the petitioner while referring to the order annexed as Annexure-1 to I.A. No. 2560/2022, submits that the review application preferred by the petitioner has been rejected by the respondent No.2 on 21.03.2022. On this, Mr. Rupesh Singh, learned counsel for the respondent-EPFO, raises preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the present writ petition on the ground the petitioner has got alternative/ statutory/efficacious remedy of preferring appeal under Section 7-I of the Act, 1952 before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-II, Dhanbad against the aforesaid orders passed by the respondent No.2 under Sections 7-A & 7-B of the Act, 1952. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view that the petitioner has got alternative/statutory/efficacious remedy of preferring appeal under Section 7-I of the Act, 1952 before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-II, Dhanbad against the aforesaid orders passed by the respondent No.2 under Sections 7-A & 7-B of the Act, 1952, I am not inclined to entertain the present writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed as not maintainable at this stage. However, the petitioner is at liberty take alternative/ statutory/efficacious recourse by preferring appeal under Section 7-I of the Act, 1952 before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-II, Dhanbad against the 3 aforesaid orders passed by the respondent No.2 under Sections 7-A & 7-B of the Act, 1952. Consequently, I.A. Nos. 2559/2022 & 2560/2022 also stand disposed of. Satish/-

(RAJESH SHANKAR, J)