The main legal point established in the judgment is that a review petition filed under Section 7B of the EPF Act is maintainable and should be heard on its merits, even after the challenge to the original order has failed before the appellate authority.

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J. - This judgment has been pronounced through video conferencing.

2. In the present petition, the relief prayed for by the Petitioners is that the review application before the Assistant Provident Funds Commissioner (hereinafter ''APFC'') under Section 7B of the Employees Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter, ''EPF Act'') ought to be decided as the same has not been decided till date.

3. The submission of ld. counsel for the Petitioners is that the APFC had determined the liability of the Petitioners under Section 7A by order dated 31st July, 2018, directing them to deposit a sum of Rs. 33,56,110/- for the period from 2012-2016. The Petitioners immediately filed a review application under Section 7B of the EPF Act, before the APFC, on 21st August, 2018.

4. Thereafter, under legal advice, the Petitioners also filed an appeal under Section 7I of the EPF Act, before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (hereinafter, ''CGIT''). The CGIT directed the Petitioner to comply with the condition of pre-deposit under Section 7O of the EPF Act, vide order dated 9th January, 2019. The Petitioners filed an application for recall/modification of the said order. However, on 11th September, 2019, due to the post of the Presiding Officer of the CGIT being vacant, the matter was adjourned to 31st October, 2019. On 31st October, 2019, the Petitioners were not present as they were under the assumption that the post of the Presiding Officer is still vacant. The matter was listed before another Bench and the application seeking extension of time for depositing the pre-deposit amount was dismissed as not pressed and the appeal was dismissed. Thereafter, on 27th February, 2020, the application for restoration of appeal was also rejected. Ld. Counsel submits that this order is in the process of being challenged by the Petitioner.

5. In the meantime, the review application under Section 7B has still not been considered by the APFC and instead, it has issued a Recovery Certificate dated 10th April, 2019 in terms of the assessment order. Two show cause notices dated 2nd November, 2020 and 5th November, 2020 have also been served on the Petitioner by the Recovery Officer.

6. It is the submission of Mr. Dash, ld. counsel for the Petitioner that independent of the proceedings in the appeal, the review application before the APFC ought to be decided as the same was filed prior to the filing of the appeal. Recovery proceedings have now been initiated despite the pendency of the review. Accordingly, the Petitioners pray for decision in the review application in a time-bound manner.

7. Ms. Inderjeet Sidhu, ld. counsel appearing for the Respondent submits that under Section 7B of the EPF Act, a review application would not be maintainable, once the order has attained finality inasmuch as the language of Section 7B is very clear that it is only in respect of orders to which no appeal is preferred that a review is maintainable. Thus, since the original order has attained finality, the present petition is not maintainable.

8. The short question that arises for decision in this case is as to whether the review petition under Section 7B is liable to be decided even after the challenge to the Section 7A order has failed before the CGIT. The language of Section 7B is as under:

" 7B. Review of orders passed under section 7A.-

(1) Any person aggrieved by an order made under sub-section (1) of section 7A, but from which no appeal has been preferred under this Act, and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of such order may apply for a review of that order to the officer who passed the order.

Provided that such offi