D. C. SRIVASTAVA, J.

( 1 ) A preliminary objection has been raised by Shri B. T. Rao, learned counsel for the respondent, that this writ petition is not maintainable because of existence of alternative remedy of appeal against the impugned order and since alternative remedy of filing appeal against the impugned order has not been availed of by the petitioner the writ petition deserves to be rejected on this preliminary objection.

( 2 ) SHRI S. B. Vakil, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri B. T. Rao, learned counsel for the respondent, have been heard at length on this preliminary objection.

( 3 ) THE impugned order Annexure-A has been passed under Section 7-A of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short `act ). Provision for appeal against such order is provided under Section 7-I of the Act which inter alia provides that any person aggrieved by an order under Section 7a may prefer appeal to the Tribunal against such order. As such there is no dispute that there is provision under the Act for alternative remedy by filing appeal against the impugned order. Admittedly, this remedy has not been availed of by the petitioner. The question is wh

Click Here to Read the rest of this document