HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (S) No. 7186 0f2007 PETITIONER : Bilaspur Spinning Miils 8c Industries, Lalkhadan Bilaspur, A company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 having Registered Office at 12, Government Place (East), Kolkata -— 700 069 (West Bengal), Through its Director, Lalkhadan, Bilaspur, District: Bilaspur, Chhat‘tisgarh. RESPONDENTS : 1. Union of India, Through the Secretary, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi. 2. Employee’s Provident Fund Organization, Through its Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Regional 0&iee, Chhattisgarh, Block ~ D, Scheme 32, Indira Gandhi Commercial Complex, Pandri, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Regional Onice, Chhattisgarh, Block ~ D, Scheme 32, Indira Gandhi Commercial Compiex, Pandri, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4. Enforcement Oiiicer, Employees Provident Fund Organization, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA VERSUS SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Amom, J. Present: Shri Sanj ay K. Agawal, Advocate for the petitioner. ShriPradeep Saxena, Advocate for the respondent No. 2, 3 & 4 ORAL ORDER (Passed on 05E; day of December, 2007) By way of this petition, the petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the impugned order dated 29.11.2006 (Annexure P/17) passed by the Employees Provident Fund Organization (Ministry of Labour, Government of India) Regional Odice, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, under section 7-A of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act, 1952’). Section 7-I of the Act, 1952 provides for statutory appeal to the Tribunal against the order passed by the Central Government or any authority, I 4/ // \ ’ L“ :1 $~mi¥$§é$£wLWV under the proviso to sub-sectiori 3, or sub-section (4) of section 1, or section 3, or sub~section (1) of section 7A, or section 7B, or section 7C, or section 14B. Thus, the impugned order is aypellable before the Tribunal under provisions of section 7-1 ofthe Act, 1952. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that since the order passed by the Empioyees Provident Fund Organization , Regional OEice, Raipur, is Without jurisdiction, this Court is competent to entertain this petition. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2, 3 and 4, per contra, wouid submit that when the statutory remedy of appeal is provided, this Court shouid not exercise its discretion in favour of the petitioner. Even otherwise, lack ofjurisdiction can be challenged before the Tribunal also. 5. Without going into the merits ofthe case, I am of the View that this writ petition is not maintainable in the facts of the case, as no extraordinary circumstances exist to entertain this petition, when there is already a provision of appeal to the Tribunal under the provisions ofthe Act, 1952. Thus, in View of the foregoing, this petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to take recourse to alternative remedy of statutory appeai, if so advised. No order as to costs. Sdl- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge