A writ petition is insufficient for challenging an administrative order when an appellate remedy exists under the statute.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 19^th day of November, 2025 The issue involved in this writ petition pertains to the freezing of the account of the petitioner’s company in light of Ext.P7 proceedings, i.e., proceedings under Section 7A of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (in short ‘the Act’) and the consequential proceedings under Ext.P12. It is the petitioner’s case that an employee of the petitioner’s company, Sri. Nikhil K.S., preferred a complaint alleging non-payment of EPF contributions. Accordingly, the 3^rd respondent conducted an inspection and directed compliance with the provisions of the Act with effect from 01.04.2017.

2. However, the counsel for the petitioner contends that the said complainant is not an employee of the petitioner’s company. In fact, there exists a Contract Supply Agreement through the 4^th respondent for the supply of employees, and the said complainant is part of such contractual arrangement and is in no way directly connected to the petitioner’s firm. In light of the inspection conducted by the 3^rd respondent, Ext.P7 adjudication order was issued under Section 7A of the Act. It is the petitioner’s case that, prior to issuing Ext.P7 under , the report of the investigating officer was not provided, and no opportunity for cross-examination was granted, and even without these procedural safeguards, the further consequential proceedings under Ext.P12 were issued, whereby the entire account of the petitioner’s firm was frozen. According to the petitioner, Section 7-I provides for an appeal to the Tribunal, and, similarly, Section 7B provides for a review of orders passed under . The petitioner is to avail the said opportunity, if permitted, subject to the condition that the delay in the intervening period is condoned.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents also pointed out that a writ petition is not the proper remedy available to the petitioner and that the petitioner will have to prefer an appeal under Section 7-I . The petitioner is also amenable to the said suggestion. In such circumstances, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a direction that, if the petitioner is desirous of preferring an appeal under Section 7-I as stated above, he is permitted to prefer an appeal against the order passed under Section 7A of the Act.

4. As per Rule 7(2) of the Employees’ Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1997, “Any person aggrieved by a notification issued by the Central Government or an order passed by the Central Government or any other authority under the Act may, within 60 days from the date of issue of the notification/order, prefer an appeal to the Tribunal.” The proviso to Rule 7(2) further provides that, if the Tribunal is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal within the prescribed period, it may extend the said period by a further period of 60 days.

5. Taking note of the statutory provisions, it is evident that the appropriate remedy for the petitioner is to approach the Tribunal. However, in view of the particular circumstances relating to the freezing of the account, and finding no other expeditious remedy, the petitioner preferred this writ petition on 05.03.2019 and obtained a stay against Ext.P12. The matter has been pending before this Court till date. On considering the statutory provisions, I deem it appropriate to direct the petitioner to approach the appellate forum as provided under Section 7-I . Accordingly, the petitioner shall approach the Central Government Industrial Tribunal challenging Ext.P7 order passed under Section 7A by the 3^rd respondent. However, the delay contemplated under the