Point of law: High Court, does not, therefore, act as a Court of appeal against the decision of a Court or Tribunal, to correct errors of fact, and does not by assuming jurisdiction under Article 226 trench upon an alternative remedy provided by statute for obtaining relief. Where it is open to the aggrieved petitioners to move another tribunal, or even itself in another jurisdiction for obtaining redress in the manner provided by a statute, the High Court normally will not permit by entertaining a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the machinery created under the statute to be bypassed, and will leave the party applying to it to seek resort to the machinery so set up. The petitioners having failed to make any allegations regarding violation of fundamental rights, violation of principles of natural justice, or violation of any statutory provision, the present writ petition would not be maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Sudeep Seth, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Piyush Kumar Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Savitra Vardhan Singh, learned counsel appearing for Union of India and Sri Akhilesh Pratap Singh, learned counsel for respondent no. 2, through video conferencing in view of COVID-19 pandemic.

2. By means of present writ petition the petitioners have assailed the validity of orders dated 16.03.2020, 31.07.2020, 24.08.2020, 31.08.2020 and 03.09.2020, passed by the respondent no. 2 in Case No. UPLKO0013539000/7A/07/2013 in proceedings under Section 7A of the Employees Provident Fund and Misc. Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1952”).

3. Sri Sudeep Seth, Senior Advocate has submitted that petitioner no.1 is a Partnership firm which was constituted on 01.04.2010 and subsequently there was change in the partnership deed and the petitioners firm was again re-constituted on 01.04.2012, while petitioner no.2 is a partner of the firm..

4. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the controversy in the present writ petition relates to the various orders passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner – I, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as “the Provident Fund Commissioner) in proceedings under Section 7-A of the Act of 1952, for determining the liability of the petitioners as an employer under the Act of 1952.

5. The Provident Fund Commissioner has embarked upon the enquiry under Section 7A of the Act of 1952 by giving notice to the petitioner firm for determining the number of persons in employment with the petitioners. It is submitted that there are number of persons termed as “Commission Agents” “Stringers” and “Motivators” who according to the petitioners do not fall within the definition of “employee” as provided in Section 2(f) of the Act of 1952 and therefore contend that they are not liable to deposit any contribution on their behalf.

6. It is urged by the petitioners that they have deposited the contribution of the Provident Fund with regard to the persons who they consider as their employees, while the Commission Agents, etc. have never been employed/engaged by the petitioners, therefore they have no liability to deposit the contribution on their behalf.

7. The grievance the petitioners is that they are repeatedly being required to submit various documents, despite the fact that they have already submitted all the documents, as required, by the Provident Fund Commissioner, and as such, requiring the petitioners to furnish further information and documents constitutes harassment and therefore, it is vehemently urged that the impugned orders are clearly illegal and arbitrary and are liable to be set aside.

8. Learned Counsels appearing on behalf of Union of India and Provident Fund Commissioner have submitted that the Provident Fund Commissioner has power under Section 7A of the Act of 1952 to hear, inquire into the matter, to determine whether the “Commission Agents” etc. are infact employees of the petitioners or not and for which purpose under Section 7A(2) of the Act of 1952, the Provident Fund Commissioner has sufficient power to enforce attendance, require for production of documents, examine witnesses etc., and perusal of the order sheet would itself indicate that the petitioners have been wholly non cooperative with the Provident Fund Commissioner in as much as they are avoiding producing the record as directed, and are clearly responsible for the pendency of the matter for last more than 7 years. It has been submitted that the petitioners are bound to provide all the documents required by the Provident Fund Commissioner, as the said material is in possession of the petitioners and only on examination of such material can the Provident fund Commissioner determine the status of "Commissioner Agents/Stringers and Motivators" as to whether they fall in the definition of employee" under the Act of 1952 or not.

9. It has further been disclosed in the writ petition that seve