The court held that the authority was wholly without jurisdiction in calling upon the petitioners to pay the compensation and/or damages either in the form of penalty or otherwise for the period prior to takeover because the authority had not determined the guilt of the petitioners before imposing the penalty, which violated the principle of natural justice.

( 1 ) IT appears to this Court that the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Jalpaiguri, in the order impugned directed the petitioners to pay certain amount for the period March 1989 to September 1997 and October 1997 to February 1998.

( 2 ) IT further appears from the figures that the claim amount is Rs. 68,43,066/- and Rs. 1,94,884/- respectively totalling to Rs. 70,37,950/ -. After giving particulars of the figure derived from the order impugned, the concerned authority stated that the amount of damages should be paid by the aforesaid employer/petitioner company in the respective Employees Provident Fund accounts maintained by the bank within a period of 15 days failing which a proceeding for recovery of such sums will be made under section 8 of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. It was also directed that in case of failure to deposit and penal damages within the stipulated period, section 7q of the Act for further simple interest will be added. The petitioner company invoked the writ jurisdiction without preferring appeal by saying that alternative remedy is no bar in the facts and circumstances of this case.

( 3 ) ACCORDING to Mr. Abhijit Chatterjee, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that from an order under section 14b i. e. to recover the damages by the authority there a provision of appeal but from an order under section 17b, a new insertion in the Act has no provision of appeal. Upon going through the such section 7-I, being a provision of appeal to the respective tribunal, I find that the statement of Mr. Chatterjee is substantially correct but a close scrutiny is required to be made before taking any decision by the Court of law. It has to be ascertained whether the self imposed restriction in respect of alternative remedy will be maintained in this particular case or will be given a relaxation.

( 4 ) IN course of hearing, a decision reported in 1998 (8) SCC (1) in re: Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and Ors. , has come into play. This case indicates a guideline of hearing of the matters under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the High Court. In paragraph 15 of such judgment the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the restriction of the High Court is self imposed. If an effective and efficacious remedy is available, the High Court would not normally exercise its jurisdiction. There are four exceptions, firstly, where the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of any of the fundamental rights, secondly, where there has been a violation of the principle of natural justice, thirdly, where the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction and fourthly, where the vires of an Act is challenged. Therefore, the task of the writ Court hereunder is to ascertain whether the case of the petitioner company is falling upon any of the aforesaid four exceptions or not.

( 5 ) IN a judgment of Calcutta High Court reported in 1995 1 LLJ 939 in re: Darjeeling Dooars Plantation Ltd. and Anr. v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, West Bengal and Ors. , a Division Bench of this Court held that there is a distinction in between section 14b and section 17b of the Act. There is a distinction between the word 'employer' and the other person'. The 'other person' comes only after transfer of the establishment either in whole or in part. Transfer of the establishment is contemplated under section 17b. Section 17b does not contemplate any hearing of the 'employer' and the 'other person' or either of them. Section 17b of the Act contemplates stage post transfer. It says that the 'employer' and the 'person' to whom the establishment is so transferred shall jointly and severally be liable to pay the contribution and other sums due from the employer. On the other hand section 14b contemplates a hearing of the 'employer'. The absence of the expression the 'other person' in such section clearly shows that it is a stage prior to the tran