SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Online)(All) 23158

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERING AND RURAL TECHNOLOGY – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND 2 OTHERS – Respondent
WRIC/34869/2022



An order passed under Section 7-B(5) of the EPF Act, rejecting an application for review, is not appealable under Section 7-I of the Act.

Headnote:

EPF - REVIEW - [SECTION 7-B(5)] - An order passed under Section 7-B(5) of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, rejecting an application for review, is not appealable under Section 7-I of the Act. However, the original order passed under Section 7-A of the Act, which has not been reopened by granting the review, can be challenged by way of an appeal under Section 7-I.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, an educational institution, challenged an order passed under Section 7-A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (EPF Act), and a subsequent order rejecting its review petition under Section 7-B of the Act. The petitioner argued that the review order was not appealable under Section 7-I of the Act and that the writ petition was maintainable.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the order rejecting the review petition was not appealable under Section 7-I of the EPF Act. However, the Court found that the review petition was rightly rejected as it did not satisfy any of the conditions for entertaining a review under Section 7-B of the Act.

Issues: 1. Whether an order passed under Section 7-B(5) of the EPF Act, rejecting an application for review, is appealable under Section 7-I of the Act?2. Whether the review petition in the present case was rightly rejected?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. An order passed under Section 7-B(5) of the EPF Act, rejecting an application for review, is not appealable under Section 7-I of the Act.2. A review petition under Section 7-B of the EPF Act can only be entertained if it satisfies one of the following conditions: - Discovery of new and important matter or evidence - Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record - Any other sufficient reason

Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed. However, the petitioner was granted liberty to challenge the original order passed under Section 7-A of the EPF Act by filing an appeal under Section 7-I of the Act.

Reserved on 02.01.2023

Delivered on 06.01.2023

Court No. - 34

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 34869 of 2022

Petitioner :- Institute Of Engineering And Rural Technology

Respondent :- Union Of India And 2 Others

Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Singh,Sr. Advocate

Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Jagdish Pathak,Mukteshwar Upadhyay

Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.

1.

Factual matrix of present case, in brief, are that petitioner has suffered

with an order dated 18.10.2021 passed under Section 7-A of Employees’

Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter

referred to as “Act, 1952”). Being aggrieved petitioner filed a review

petition under Section 7-B of Act, 1952 which was dismissed vide order

dated 22.09.2022. Both the above referred orders are under challenge before

this Court.

2.

At the outset, Sri Mukteshwar Upadhyay, learned counsel appearing

for Respondent-1, raised a preliminary objection that any order passed under

Section 7-A of Act, 1952 is appealable under Section 7-I of Act, 1952 as

well as the order passed in review petition is an order under Section 7-B(5),

therefore, it is also appealable under Section 7-I of Act, 1952 and the present

writ petition is not maintainable due to statutory alternative remedy available

to petitioner.

3.

Sri Amrendra Nath Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri

Ajay Singh, learned counsel for petitioner, fairly submitted that any order

passed under Section 7-A of Act, 1952 is appealable under Section 7-I of

Act, however, every order passed under Section 7-B(5) is not appealable

under Section 7-I. He referred both the provisions and for reference Section

7-B and 7-I of Act, 1952 are reproduced hereinafter:

“7-B. Review of orders passed under section 7-A.—(1) Any person

aggrieved by an order made under sub-section (1) of section 7-A,

2

but from which no appeal has been preferred under this Act, and

who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence

which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within his

knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the

order was made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on

the face of the record or for any other sufficient reason, desires to

obtain a review of such order may apply for a review of that order to

the officer who passed the order:

Provided that such officer may also on his own motion

review his order if he is satisfied that it is necessary so to do on any

such ground.

(2) Every application for review under sub-section (1) shall be filed

in such form and manner and within such time as may be specified

in the Scheme.

(3) Where it appears to the officer receiving an application for

review that there is no sufficient ground for a review, he shall reject

the application.

(4) Where the officer is of opinion that the application for review

should be granted, he shall grant the same:

Provided that,—

(a) no such application shall be granted without previous notice to

all the parties before him to enable them to appear and be heard in

support of the order in respect of which a review is applied for, and

(b) no such application shall be granted on the ground of discovery

of new matter or evidence which the applicant alleges was not

within his knowledge or could not be produced by him when the

order was made, without proof of such allegation.

(5) No appeal shall lie against the order of the officer rejecting an

application for review, but an appeal under this Act shall lie against

an order passed under review as if the order passed under review

were the original order passed by him under section 7-A.”

3

“7-I. Appeals to Tribunal.—(1) Any person aggrieved by a

notification issued by the Central Government, or an order passed by

the Central Government or any authority, under the proviso to sub-

section (3), or sub-section (4), of section 1, or section 3, or sub-

section (1) of section 7-A, or section 7-B except an order rejecting

an application f

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top