The main legal point established is that the authority cannot impose liability under the EPF Act unless the entity is covered under the Act, and any such imposition of liability prior to coverage is without jurisdiction and illegal.

JUDGMENT :

S.N. Prasad, J. - Petitioner being aggrieved with the order dated 30.4.2008 passed under section 7A of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, hereinafter referred to as the EPF Act, 1952 by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Odisha is before this Court on the ground that the petitioner has not been provided with opportunity to defend his case, hence there is violation of principle of natural justice.

2. Relevant documents have not been supplied to the petitioner. Calculation as contained in the order impugned which shows liability of the petitioner is without any reason since the entire calculation has been made only on the basis of 5 Accounts and other Account of the members of EPF Funds has not been taken into consideration and as such the amount is exorbitant.

3. Principle as contained in paras-34,35, 36 and 37 of the Employees Provident Funds Scheme, 1952, hereinafter referred to as EPF Scheme, 1952 has not been followed.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner elaborating the argument has submitted that the petitioner has not been provided with opportunity to defend his case and if opportunity would have been provided this order would not have been passed. The petitioner unit has been brought under the purview of the EPF Act, 1952 by virtue of notification issued on 21.6.1982 but from perusal of the impugned order amount shown is for the period from 4/1980 to 7/2007 hence the amount prior to the coverage period of unit under the Act has been taken into consideration, as such the order is without jurisdiction on this ground.

5. While on the other hand learned counsel for the opposite parties has vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner on the ground that this writ petition is not maintainable since alternative remedy of appeal as provided under section 7-I of the EPF Act, 1952 as such this writ petition cannot be entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the ground of availability of alternative remedy of appeal.

6. Controverting this argument learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that this writ petition will be maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India because the petitioner has approached this Court for issuance of writ of certiorari for quashing the order passed by the authority under section 7A of the EPF Act, 1952 on the ground of violation of principle of natural justice and order is without jurisdiction and in this regard he placed reliance upon judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of The State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Mohammad Nooh, ; U.P. State Spinning Co. Ltd. Vs. R.S. Pandey and Another, ; Harbanslal Sahnia and Another Vs. Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. and Others Whirlpool Corporation Vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and Others, .

By placing reliance upon these judgments it has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the writ petition is maintainable and it cannot be dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative remedy if there is violation of principles of natural justice or there is violation of any fundamental right or the order is without any jurisdiction.

7. According to the petitioner in this case there is violation of principle of natural justice because the petitioner has not been provided the relevant documents which was relevant for proper adjudication of the issue involved and not proving relevant documents goes to the root of the principle of natural justice and as such this writ petition cannot be dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative remedy.

8. Reverting this argument learned counsel for the opposite parties has submitted that there is no violation of principles of natural justice because the petitioner has been provided with all opportunity of being heard, notices have been issued by the competent authority, in pursuance to the said notice the petitioner through various representatives have put their appearance and filed detail reply which has been annexed to