Heard Mr. Kalyan Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Shubha Jha, learned counsel for the Respondents.

2. Petitioner, in this writ application, is a Registered Establishment, engaging workers and has the liability to deposit the Provident Fund Contributions of the workers.

3. Challenge in this writ application, is to the order dated-24.09.2007, passed by the Respondent No. 2, namely, the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Employee Provident Fund Organization, Bhagirath Complex, Karamtoli, P.O. & District-Ranchi, passed under Section 7 A of the E.P.F. & M.P. Act whereby the petitioner was directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 6,96,505/-towards the arrears of contributions alongwith interest to the extent of Rs.2,19,265/-upon the arrears of contributions for the period May, 2003 to July, 2006.

4. The petitioner had preferred a Review application under the provisions of Section 7 B of the Act. The Review application was dismissed by order dated-03.12.2007, by the concerned authority.

5. The petitioner had filed an amendment application, praying for amending his writ application in order to incorporate the order of rejection of the review application and the corresponding prayer for quashing the same. The amendment application was allowed by the order of this Court.

6. The main ground advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that while considering the matter under Section 7 A as also under Section 7 B of the Act, both the concerned Authorities had committed a serious error in as much as, the entire set of documents including the Challans by which the petitioner had deposited various sums of money, which, taken together, would amount to more than Rs. 9 lakhs, has not been taken into account. Learned counsel would explain that even though the demand was for a total sum of Rs. 8.50 lakhs but against that, the petitioner has already deposited more than Rs. 9 lakhs and thereby, had deposited around Rs. 82,000/-in excess of what was due and payable by him.

Learned counsel adds further that in the Review application filed, the petitioner had specifically invited attention to the aforesaid facts that a sum of Rs. 82,000/-has been paid in excess of the amount and this amount ought to have been adjusted/refunded to the petitioner. The Review authority, as per learned counsel’s submissions, did not consider the grounds stated in the Review application and without granting any opportunity to explain the matter and to invite the concerned authority’s attention to the relevant facts, which otherwise, would have absolved the petitioner from his liability, has passed the impugned order.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the Respondents would vehemently oppose the grounds advanced by the petitioner and would contend that from perusal of the order passed in the Review application, it would be apparent that the same was passed on considering the merits of the case and on the basis of the documents, which was furnished by the petitioner. Learned counsel adds that the petitioner was given ample opportunity to furnish all the relevant documents and such opportunity was available to him even at the stage of filing of the Review application but since he did not chose to file any further document, the reviewing authority had proceeded to consider the review application and the grounds stated, therein, on the basis of the materials available on record and after discussing the entire materials had rejected the petitioner’s review application. As such, there is no perversity or impropriety in the impugned orders.

Learned counsel adds further that the petitioner has alternative statutory remedy of appeal before the Appellate Tribunal under Section 7 (I) of the Act and without availing the alternative remedy, the petitioner cannot possibly invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court.

8. Taking support from the contentions of Mrs. Benani Verma, who is also the counsel for the Respondent-E.P.F.O., learned counsel adds that the petitioner’s co