IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3911 of 2005 KRISHNA PRASAD SAH, SON OF LATE BARSO SAH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-SULTANGANJ, POLICE STATION-SULTANGANJ, DISTRICT-BHAGALPUR. ……………………………………………………….PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, R. BLOCK, ROAD NO.6, PATNA. 2. PARITOSH KUMAR, THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, BHAGALPUR. …………………………………………………RESPONDENTS. ----------- 2/ 20-05-2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition questioning the validity and legality of the order dated 22.11.2004 (Annexure-4) passed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Bhagalpur in Case No. 8 of 2004 in exercise of his powers under sections 7A and 7Q of The Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 ( In short “the Act”). The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 24.01.2005 (Annexure-6) passed in terms of section 7B of the Act. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the orders impugned are contrary to the materials available on record and are fit to be set aside by this Court. Whereas, learned counsel for the respondents supports the impugned orders and submits that the 2 orders impugned are appeallable in terms of section 7-I of the Act. 4. After having heard the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that in the given facts of the case, the petitioner must exhaust his alternative remedy of appeal provided under the Act. The petitioner is hereby directed to file an appeal within a period of four weeks from today before the learned Tribunal in terms of section 7- I of the Act. If such an appeal is filed by the petitioner within the time prescribed by this Court, after fulfilling other requirements under the Act and a prayer for condonation of delay is made, then learned Tribunal shall take into consideration the fact that the writ petition was filed on 24.03.2005 and it remained pending before this Court till date. In the background of the case, learned Tribunal shall be obliged to consider the claim of the petitioner on merits, after condoning the delay. 5. This is clarified that this Court has not gone into the merits of the claim of the parties and it has to be decided by the learned Tribunal. If such an appeal is filed, the learned Tribunal shall make endeavour to dispose it of the same on its own merit at an early date, preferably within a period of six months from the date of filing of such an appeal. 6. However, it is made clear that if the 3 petitioner does not file any appeal along with the certified copy of the present order within the time prescribed by this Court, then it shall be construed that the writ petition filed by the petitioner has finally been rejected by this Court as not maintainable. Thereafter, the authorities shall be liberty to take action in accordance with law. 7. With the aforesaid observations/directions, this writ petition stands disposed of. BTiwary/ (Birendra Prasad Verma, J.)