A review application under Section 7B of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act requires adherence to specific criteria even after an appeal.

JUDGMENT

The petitioner suffered Ext.P8 order under Section 7A of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act , 1952 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1952 Act’), determining the liability of the petitioner for the period from September, 2014 to November, 2015. The said order was passed on the basis of an order of remand by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal in an appeal filed by the petitioner against Ext.P2 order for the same period. The petitioner is now before this Court stating that the application for review filed by the petitioner under Section 7B of the 1952 Act has now been rejected by Ext.P14, taking the stand that, since Ext.P2 order was already subject matter of an appeal, a further application for review of Ext.P8 under Section 7B of the 1952 Act is not maintainable.

2. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation would submit, with reference to the provisions of Section 7B of the

1952 Act, that an application for review can be maintained only if the applicant satisfies the conditions set out in sub-section (4) of Section 7B of the 1952 Act. It is submitted that the application filed by the petitioner seeking review does not indicate that the conditions set out in sub-section (4) of Section 7B of the 1952 Act have been satisfied. It is further submitted that, in such circumstances, an application for review under Section 7B of the 1952 Act cannot be entertained.

3. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation, I am of the view that the reason mentioned in Ext.P14 for rejecting the application filed for review cannot be sustained. It is true that the earlier order (Ext.P2), determining the liability of the petitioner for the period aforesaid under Section 7A of the 1952 Act, was subject matter of an appeal before the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, and Ext.P8 order was passed on the basis of the order of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal remanding the matter for fresh consideration. That by itself cannot be a ground to hold that the petitioner cannot file an application for review under Section 7B of the 1952 Act against the subsequent order. The learned Standing Counsel for the Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation may be right in contending that the petitioner must satisfy the conditions mentioned in sub-section (4) of Section 7B of the 1952 Act for the purposes of maintaining a review. However, since the impugned order records a different reason for rejecting the application for review, I have no option but to set aside Ext.P14.

4. Accordingly, the writ petition will stand disposed of by setting aside Ext.P14 and directing that Ext.P9 application, filed under Section 7B of the 1952 Act seeking review of Ext.P8 order, be considered and disposed of on merits after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. I make it clear that I have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the application for review and the review petition needs to be entertained only if the petitioner satisfies the conditions for maintaining such a review petition.

The writ petition is disposed of as above.