IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 588 of 2010. M/s Whale Stationery Products Ltd., 80 Mohbewala, Industrial Area, Saharanpur Road, Dehradun, District Dehradun through its Administrative Officer (Personnel)/Authorized Signatory Mr. Satiskumar Sharma, S/O Sri S.L.Sharma. … Petitioner. Vs. 1. Director of Industries, Patel Nagar, Dehradun, District Dehradun 2. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Vyom Prasath, GMS Road, Dehradun, District Dehradun. 3. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Office of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Vyom Prasath, GMS Road, Dehradun, District Dehradun. …Respondents. Mr. Rakesh Thapliyal, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. N.P.Sah, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent no. 1. Mr. Rajendra Tamta, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 3. Date April 27, 2010. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. (Interim Relief Application No. 2875 of 2010) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order impugned dated 30- 9-2009 passed by respondent no.3 (Annexure-3 to ther petition), whereby the petitioner’s establishment was directed to remit the amounts of Rs. 76,197/- within 15 days. It was also observed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (C) in the impugned order that “further the respective wings of department are requested to investigate the matter, whether this case needs a formal complaint to be lodged against the establishment under Section 406/409 of IPC and 110 of CrPC.” Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent nos. 2 and 3 has submitted that an alternate remedy to file appeal is available to the petitioner under Section 7(1) of the Employees 2 Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provision Act, 1952 (for short the Act). The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that so far as the recovery part of the impugned order is concerned, the petitioner may file an appeal but the part of the order whereby observation was made to investigate the matter whether this case needs a formal complaint to be lodged against the establishment under Section 406/409 I.P.C. and Section 110 of the Cr.P.C., the same may be kept in abeyance till the disposal of appeal. A statutory remedy to file an appeal before the Tribunal against the order passed under Section 14B of the Act is available to the petitioner. So far as the other part of the impugned order regarding lodging of complaint against the petitioner is concerned, that part of the order shall be kept in abeyance till the disposal of appeal, if preferred by the petitioner. With the said direction and observation, the writ petition is disposed of finally. (B.S.Verma,J.) RCP 3