JUDGMENT :

D.P. CHOUDHURY, J.

1. Challenge has been made in this writ application to the impugned orders dated 25.6.1993, 24.4.1995 and 20.5.1998 vide Annexures-1, 2 and 4 respectively passed by the opposite party no. 3 under the provisions of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’).

FACTS

2. The unshorn details of the case of the petitioner is that M/s. Hotel Paradise, Dhenkanal was established by the family members of Mr. Sudam Pal and Madhabananda Pal and after the death of Madhabananda Pal the said establishment was closed since pretty long period. The petitioner was neither the employer of the said establishment nor was looking after the affairs of the establishment for the disputed period, i.e., from 1980 to 1987.

3. Be it stated, the opposite party no. 3 without ascertaining the employer of said establishment and the employees of the establishment for the period from 1980 to 1987 issued notice to the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs.85,446.20 as determined under Section 7-A of the Act and Scheme made thereunder. The petitioner claims that he has not been offered any opportunity of being heard by the opposite party no. 3 before determining the dues to be paid. He also claims that he is not the employer of the said establishment. So, the petitioner after receipt of notice filed a Review Petition on 9.1.1995 to consider his claim. Opposite party no. 3 rejected the review petition without granting any opportunity to the petitioner of being heard on 24.4.1995 on the ground that it is barred by limitation. It is the case of the petitioner that after receipt of the impugned order passed by the opposite party no. 3 dated 25.6.1993 on 16.12.1994 submitted the review petition within thirty days as per usual practice although the Act and the Scheme thereunder do not provide limitation for filing of review petition.

4. It is further case of the petitioner that due to non-deposit of the amount determined, the opposite party no. 3 and his subordinate officer filed criminal case before the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dhenkanal. However, the petitioner challenged the impugned order of the opposite party no. 3 before this Court vide O.J.C. No. 2226 of 1996 which was disposed of on 2.4.1998 with a direction to the opposite party No. 3 to rehear the review application on the question of limitation and at the same time the Court directed the petitioner to appear before the opposite party no. 3 on 29.4.1998 to participate in the proceeding.

5. Be it stated that opposite party no. 3 in pursuance of the order of this Court disposed of the case as if it is a proceeding under Section 7-A of the Act. It is the case of the petitioner that even if the Court has remanded the case to hear of the review application on the question of limitation but the opposite party no. 3 reiterated his own views as taken in earlier impugned orders challenged before this Court. So, the petitioner came in the second round of litigation challenging the said order along with the order passed in the earlier proceeding under Section 7-A of the Act.

6. Per contra, the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 filed the counter refuting the allegation made in the writ petition. The opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 challenged the writ petition being not maintainable on the ground that the petitioner has alternative remedy available by preferring statutory appeal before the E.P.F. Appellate Tribunal as against the impugned order purportedly passed under Section 7-A/7-B of the Act. It is also stated that petitioner is the employer of the establishment and since the establishment failed to comply the provision of the Act during the period from 04/1980 to 09/1987, a show cause notice under Section 7-A of the Act was issued to the petitioner. On several occasions the petitioner refused to receive notice but on 8.1.1988 the petitioner attended the enquiry and took time to produce records. Thereafter due to long absence of the pet