Establishes that failure to challenge a subsequent order limits the relief available in writ petitions under employment-related statutes.

JUDGMENT The petitioner suffered an order under section 7A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1952 Act’). In a statutory appeal, the said order was set aside. The order of the appellate authority was challenged before this Court by the provident fund organisation by filing W.P(C)No.14810 of 2015. The order of the appellate authority was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the original authority. The Division Bench, through Ext.P.1 judgment, refused to interfere with the judgment of the learned Single Judge. According to the petitioner, the matter has been taken to the Supreme Court and the Special Leave Petition has been allotted a Diary Number.

2. The petitioner has now approached this Court, being aggrieved by the proceedings initiated against the petitioner under Section 8F of the 1952 Act. It is not disputed before me that the proceedings under of the 1952 Act are based on the subsequent order issued under 7A of the 1952 Act, after remand in terms of the directions issued by this Court. It is also not disputed before me that, though the Division Bench through Ext.P1 judgment expressly reserved the right of the petitioner to challenge the said order, in accordance with the law, the petitioner has not chosen to challenge the said order.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the Provident Fund Department points out that since the Division Bench permitted the petitioner to challenge the subsequent order, in accordance with the law, and, since the petitioner has not chosen to challenge the said order and has instead chosen to approach the Supreme Court against Ext.P1 judgment on the ground that the question regarding maintainability of W.P(C)No.14810 of 2015 at the instance of the Provident Fund Organization was not considered, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief in this writ petition.

4. Having heard counsel as above, I am clear in my mind that the impugned proceedings cannot be interfered with in this Writ Petition as the liability in respect of which the recovery is initiated has not been challenged by the petitioner. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has raised a contention that the proceedings for recovery are not in accordance with the law, Ext.P3 order cannot be interfered with as it is only a garnishee order and it is the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank that certain amounts have already been paid over to the Provident Fund Department on account of Ext.P3 order. Therefore, making it clear that this judgment will not prevent the petitioner from challenging the order under Section 7A of the 1952 Act [which led to Ext.P3 order under Section 8F of the 1952 Act] as permitted by the Division Bench in Ext.P1 judgment, this writ petition will stand dismissed.

Sd/-