D.N. Patel, J.

1. By the Court.--Counsel for the petitioner seeks leave to delete respondent No. 1 to. 'Union of India'.

2. Leave to delete respondent No. 1 is granted.

3. Necessary amendment shall be carried out during course of the day.

4. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order has been-passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Sub Regional Office, Jamshedpur dated 21st February, 2005 under Section 7-A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (in short the Act" for the sake of brevity).

5. Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that though this order is an appealable order under Section 7-1 of the Act, he is not pressing this writ petition with a view to avail efficacious alternative remedy available to the petitioner by way of statutory appeal. Nonetheless, the stay granted by this Court vide order dated 12th May, 2005 may be continued till the stay application will be preferred by the petitioner alongwith memo of appeal decided by the concerned appellate authority working under the Act, 1952.

6. It is further submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the statutory appeal will be preferred by the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of an order of this Court. It is further submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that delay condonation application as well as stay application will be preferred alongwith statutory memo of appeal and the time consumed in this writ petition from the date of filing of this writ petition till the date of receipt of a copy of an order of this Court may be considered sympathetically for condoning the delay by the appellate authority under the Act, 1952. As the petitioner is a Central Government undertaking and they have already their own scheme much more beneficial to the employees than one which is prevailing under the Act. 1952, no prejudice is going to be caused to anyone.

7. Counsel for the respondent submitted that the impugned order, passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, dated 21st February, 2,005 is absolutely, just and proper and in consonance with the facts of the present case and the petitioner is covered under schedule head "Heavy and Fine Chemicals" as referred in Schedule-I to the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. Moreover, previously also, a writ petition was preferred by the very same petitioner before this Court bearing C.W.J.C. No. 464 of 1997 (R) and it was directed by this Court vide order dated 21st June, 2004 that the authority under the Act, 1952 will pass the order in accordance with law and meanwhile, the demand raised by the respondents shall be kept in abeyance and thereafter, the impugned order has been passed on 21st February, 2005 and appeal is provided under Section 7-1 of the Act, 1952. Thus, there is an efficacious alternative remedy available to the petitioner and therefore, there is no substance even on merits in this writ petition. Hence, the same deserves to be dismissed.

8. Having heard counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the present petitioner is a Central Government undertaking and in detail, the manufacturing process has been mentioned in the impugned order. The respondent has passed the impugned order dated 21st February, 2005 under Section 7-A of the Act, 1952. As the appeal is provided under Section 7-1 of the Act. 1952,1 am not deciding the product manufactured by the petitioner falling under schedule head "Heavy and Fine Chemicals" or it is a "Non-ferrous Metals and Alloys in the form of Ingots" industry or neither of these two. All these depend upon the evidences to be taken and matter requires to be argued out keeping in view these issues and other issues open. As there is an efficacious alternative remedy is available to the petitioner by way of statutory appeal under the provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellane