IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 842 of 2001. (Old CMWP No. 40404 of 1992) M/s Station Canteen. … Petitioner. Vs. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner. …Respondent. None present for the petitioner. Mr. D.S.Patni, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondent. Date December 07, 2010. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. None responds on behalf of the petitioner, even on revised call. Learned counsel for the respondent Mr. D.S.Patni, Advocate, has submitted that the order impugned in this writ petition has been passed under Section 7A of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and the petitioner has an alternate remedy to approach the Tribunal under Section 7I of the said Act. Even otherwise, on the ground of alternate remedy, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed on the ground of alternate remedy. If the petitioner is aggrieved, he may assail the impugned order before the appellate Forum. (B.S.Verma,J.) RCP