SCA/7303/2008 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 7303 of 2008 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT ========================================= = 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================= = COOKVEL FOODS(I) PVT. LTD. & ANR. - Petitioners Versus UNION OF INDIA THRO. MINSTRY OF LABOUR & ORS. Respondents ========================================= = Appearance : MS AVANI S MEHTA for Petitioner(s) : 1 - 2. SERVED BY RPAD - (N) for Respondent(s) : 1, NOTICE SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s) : 2, MS E.SHAILAJA for Respondent(s) : 3, ========================================= = CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT Date : 14/10/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT The petitioner has assailed the order dated 04/10/2007 passed by the Regional P.F. Commissioner-II adjudicating the SCA/7303/2008 2/3 JUDGMENT dispute and the order was made under Section 14B of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 as well as the order of recovery dated 10/04/2008 passed by the Recovery Officer & Assistant P.F. Commissioner Sub Regional Office, Rajkot. 2. Ms.Avni Mehta, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that the recovery could not have been ordered in view of the fact that there are proceedings pending before the Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction. She submitted that the remedy of appeal is available, but for availing the same 75 % of the total amount will have to be paid. Total amount is of Rs.21,6,282/- and 75 % of the said amount comes to Rs.1,62,211.50. 3. Ms.E.Shailaza, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent No.3 has contended that the alternative efficacious remedy is available under the Act and therefore the present petition may not be entertained. She has placed reliance upon the order passed by this Court (Coram: H.K.Rathod, J.) passed in Special Civil Application No.30921 of 2007 on 11/02/2008 in support of his submission. 4. Heard learned Advocate appearing for the SCA/7303/2008 3/3 JUDGMENT respective parties and has appreciated the rival side contentions. This Court is unable to accept the submission of learned Advocate for the petitioner with regard to alternative remedy being onerous in light of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. This Court has not gone into the merits with regard to validity of the impugned orders, as the valid efficacious remedy under Section 7 (I) of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 is available. Suffice it to say that, this petition is required to be dismissed only on the ground of availability of alternative efficacious remedy and therefore without going into the merits of the order impugned, the petition is dismissed. Notice discharged. Ad-interim-relief stands vacated. There shall be no order as to costs. (S.R.BRAHMBHATT, J.) sompura