JUDGMENT :

DR. B.R. SARANGI, J.

1. The petitioner, which is a proprietorship-firm, has filed this application to quash Annexure-1, the ex-parte order dated 15.03.2010 passed by the Asst. Provident Fund Commissioner (Compliance), Employees Provident Fund Organization in Case No. 7A/25/2008 under Sections 7-A and 7-Q of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short “the Act”); as well as Annexure-3, the consequential notice of demand dated 04.05.2010 issued in Certificate Case No. 54 of 2010.

2. The factual matrix of the case, in a nutshell, is that the petitioner received an ex-parte order dated 15.03.2010 passed by the Asst. Provident Fund Commissioner (Compliance) determining a sum of Rs.1,62,492/- payable towards contribution on provident fund, pension fund, insurance fund and administrative charges for the period 1/05 to 3/08 under section 7-A of the Act, and further determining an amount of Rs. 80,534/-, towards interest @ 12% per annum under Section 7Q of the Act for delay in remittance of the principal dues, the total of which comes to Rs. 2,61,938/-. In the said order, the petitioner has been directed to deposit the above amount within 15 days from the date of receipt of the order, failing which the same shall be recovered in the manner prescribed under Section 8B to 8G of the Act.

3. On receipt of order dated 15.03.2010 (Annexure-1), the petitioner filed an application for review under Section 7B of the Act but the same was rejected on the ground of limitation and others. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application under Section 7-A(4) of the Act on or about 02.06.2010 before opposite party no.1 stating inter alia that the petitioner could not attend the office of opposite party no.1 and file the fresh evidence and written statement, as the wife of the proprietor of the petitioner firm was seriously ill and passed away on 16.03.2010 (a day after passing of ex-parte order on 15.03.2010), and prayed for setting aside the ex-parte order and sought for an opportunity for production of evidence and written statement. While such application under Section 7-A(4) of the Act was pending for consideration, Certificate Case No. 54 of 2010 was initiated against the petitioner and he received a notice of demand from the Recovery Officer-opposite party no.2 to pay a sum of Rs. 2,43,026/- + Rs.214/- within a period of fifteen days, failing which steps would be taken for attachment, arrest of the petitioner and for appointment of receiver. The petitioner has already deposited the admitted dues towards EPF contribution on wages amounting to Rs. 99,446/-. The balance demand of Rs. 1,62,492/- relates to demand of EPF Contribution on service charges and interest of Rs. 80,534/-. The petitioner is not liable to pay any contribution towards service charges under the Act. Hence this application.

4. Mr. S. Udgata, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the impugned order dated 15.03.2010 has been passed ex-parte without complying with the principles of natural justice, inasmuch as no adequate opportunity has been given to the petitioner for hearing. Furthermore, notice issued by opposite party no.2 in Certificate Case No. 54 of 2010 is without jurisdiction, as opposite party no.1, who has passed the ex parte order under Annexure-1, and opposite party no.2, who has issued the notice for recovery under Annexure-2, is one and same person, who has acted as the prosecutor, adjudicator and executor. It is further contended that the impugned order passed under Sections 7-A and 7-Q of the Act, even though is appealable under Section 7-I of the Act and there is availability of alternative remedy under the statute, having been passed without affording any opportunity of hearing and non-compliance of principle of natural justice and the same being without jurisdiction, instead of availing the alternative remedy, the petitioner approached this Court by filing this application under Article 226 of the