The main legal point established is that the petitioner's appeal lies under Section 7-I of the EPF Act, and the disputed issues are to be adjudicated by the statutory authority in the pending appeal.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the respondent in 7A notice in Ref.No.TN/CB/SLM/COMP-I/90790/ Applicability/S5/2014, dated 26.06.2014 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to pay back the excess amount of Rs.3,61,97,456/- recovered from the bankers of the petitioner with a simple interest of 12% per annum.)

1. Seeking to quash the impugned 7A notice made in Ref.No.TN/CB/ SLM/COMP-I/90790/Applicability/S5/2014, dated 26.06.2014 and for a further consequential direction to the respondent to pay back the excess amount of Rs.3,61,97,456/- recovered from the bankers of the petitioner with a simple interest of 12% per annum, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

2. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner Establishment is an educational institution established by the Government of Tamil Nadu at Salem on 17th September 1997. The petitioner Establishment is functioning under the Periyar University Act 1997 and being administered by the Senate Members under the leadership of Vice Chancellor. The petitioner Establishment is having teaching and non-teaching staff both Governed by the Rules and Regulations framed by the University Grant Commission and under the Fundamental Rules of Tamil Nadu Government as well as by Tamil Nadu Government Establishment Rules and Regulation Act and extended benefits of Contributory Provident Fund.

3. It is averred in the writ petition that the respondent has issued EPF coverage notification to the petitioner for their outsourcing and contract employees on 25/02/2013 with effect from 01/02/2013. The respondent has allotted code number to the petitioner, viz CBSLM/0090790/000. The petitioner Management has placed the above EPF coverage notification to its Finance Committee and Administrative Committee, for approval, to cover all the existing temporary and daily wage employees. While being so, the respondent has issued summons dated 09.05.2013 to the petitioner to appear before the respondent only for finalization of coverage and not to determine the dues, hence, no opportunity was given to the petitioner to defend the quantum of dues. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent has issued the orders under 7A of EPF Act on 26.06.2014 determining the dues arbitrarily from 1.03.1998 with retrospective effect and also the respondent has assessed the dues for all employees including left out employees. It is the further grievance of the petitioner that the dues were assessed hypothetically and not on the basis of the actual wages paid. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

4. Per contra, Mrs.R.Meenakshi, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent would submit that the petitioner, even on receipt of the coverage memo during February 2013 issued by the respondent, has not remitted the contributions under Section 6 of the Act. Due to the default committed by the petitioner, the respondent had initiated an inquiry under Section 7A of the Act to decide the date of applicability of the Act and only thereafter, summons was issued to the petitioner to appear on 28.05.2013 with attendance and wages/salary register and other relevant records from the date of set up of the University.

5. Moreover, the impugned order issued by the respondent is an appealable order, under Section 7-I of the Act. According to the learned standing counsel, the petitioner ought to have preferred an appeal before the Tribunal constituted under Section 7-I of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1952 within 120 days.

6. It is further submitted that the operation of the statute depends on its own provisions. Since, the petitioner university had not remitted provident fund dues from the date of set up in respect of the consolidated pay employees, the respondent covere