Advocates:
['m/s a arul mary', '', 'FR K IGNACIMUTHU', 'M/S V J LATHA', '', 'B HARIPRIYA', 'R SELVI']

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED 19-07-2018

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM

W.P.No.16455 of 2017

And

W.M.P.Nos.17808, 17809 and 17810 of 2017 and 21083 of 2018

St. Michael's Higher Secondary School,

Represented by its Correspondent,

Gingee – 604 202,

Villupuram District.

..

Petitioner

Versus

1.The Assistant Provident Fund

Commissioner (Compliance),

Employees Provident Fund Organisation,

Sub-Regional Office,

P.B.No.588, Shree Complex, D Block,

No.18, Madurai Road,

Trichy-620 008.

2.The Enforcement Officer,

Employees Provident Fund Organisation,

Cuddalore and Villupuram Districts,

22, Nethaji Road, ARA Complex,

Manjakuppam,

Cuddalore-607 001.

..

Respondents

PRAYER:

Writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of

Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records in respect of

the impugned proceedings dated 19.5.2017 in No.TN/SRO-TRY/PDC/C-

21/76742/7Q PROC/2017 and in No.TN/SRO-TRY/PDC/C-21/76742/14B

PROC/2017, on the file of the first respondent and quash the

same, directing the respondents to waiver the penal damages in

respect of the petitioner school for the period from June 1996

to March 2011.

For Petitioner

: Ms.A.Arul Mary

For Respondents

: Ms.V.J.Latha

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

O R D E R

The order passed by the respondent in proceedings dated

19.5.2017 under Section 14-B of the Employees Provident Funds

and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, is under challenge in

this writ petition.

2. Though various grounds are raised, questioning the

validity of the order passed by the authority under Section 14-B

of the Act, this Court is not inclined to go into the merits of

those issues in view of the fact that an efficacious alternate

remedy is available to the aggrieved persons under Section 7-I

of the Act.

3. Section 7-I of the Act, stipulates the appeals to the

Tribunal and reads as under:-

“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 7A, or section 7B

[except an order rejecting an application

for review referred to in sub-section (5)

thereof], or section 7C, or section 14B, may

prefer an appeal to a Tribunal against such

notification or order.

(2) Every appeal under sub-section (1)

shall be filed in such form and manner,

within such time and be accompanied by such

fees, as may be prescribed.”

4. An order passed under Section 14-B of the Act, is an

appealable order as stipulated under Section 7-I of the Act.

When the Statute itself provides an efficacious alternate

remedy, more-so, before the Central Provident Fund Appellate

Tribunal, then this Court cannot entertain a writ petition under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

5. Unnecessary or routine invasion into the statutory powers

of the competent authorities under a statute should be

restrained by the Constitutional Courts. Frequent or unnecessary

invasions in the executive power will defeat the constitutional

perspectives enshrined under the Constitution of India.

Undoubtedly, the separation of powers under the Indian

Constitution has been narrated and settled in umpteen number of

judgments. Separation of powers demarcated in the Constitution

of India is also to be considered, while exercising the powers

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

of judicial review in the matter of dispensing with the appeal

remedy provided for an aggrieved person under a statute. If the

High Courts started interfering with such Appellate powers

without any valid and substantiated reasons, then the very

purpose and object of the statute and pro