IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 607 of 2003. Principal Director Electronics Service & Training Centre and another. … Petitioners. Vs. Central Provident Fund Commissioner and others. …Respondents. Mr. Pankaj Miglani, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr. D.S.Patni, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondents. Date December 20, 2010. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. (Restoration Application No. 1022 of 2010) (Delay Condonation Application No. 10110 of 2010) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. This restoration application has been moved by the petitioners against the order dated 27-10-2005 passed by this Court, whereby the writ petition has been dismissed for want of prosecution. The restoration application is accompanied by an application for condonation of delay in filing the restoration application. Both the applications are supported by an affidavit each. The restoration application and the delay condodnation applications are not opposed from the other side. Grounds mentioned in the affidavits are sufficient to condone the delay in filing the restoration application and to restore the writ petition to its original number. Accordingly, delay is condoned. The order dated 27-10- 2005 is recalled and the writ petition is restored to its original number along with interim order dated 31-7-2003 passed by this Court. Both the applications stand allowed accordingly. By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have sought the following relief:- (a) Pass a suitable order or direction for quashing and setting aside the impugned notice of demand dated 27-06-2003 passed by respondent no.3, contained in Annexure-12 to the petition. 2 (b) Pass a suitable order or direction restraining the respondent no. 3 from giving effect to the impugned notice of demand dated 27-6-2003 passed by respondent no. 3, contained in Annexure- 12. (c) Issue any other appropriate order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case. (d) Award cost of the petition. Learned counsel for the respondents has drawn attention of this Court that alternate statutory remedy of filing appeal under Section 7I of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short the Act) is available to the petitioners, therefore, the petitioners may be relegated to avail the said remedy before the Tribunal. I have perused the provision of Section 7I of the Act, which reads as under:- “7I. Appeals to Tribunal.- (1) Any person aggrieved by a notification issued by the Central Government, or an order passed by the Central Government or any authority, under the proviso to sub- section (3), or sub-section (4) of section 1, or section 3, or sub- section(1) of section 7A, or section 7B [except an order rejecting an application for review referred to in sub-section (5) thereof], or section 7C, or section 14B, may prefer an appeal to a Tribunal against such notification or order. (2) Every appeal under sub-section (1) shall be filed in such form and manner, within such time and be accompanied by such fees, as may be prescribed.” In view of the provision of Section 7I of the Act, the petitioners are given liberty to file appeal before the Tribunal concerned within a period of 30 days from today. Interim order dated 31-7-2003 passed by this Court shall continue for a period of 30 days. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. (B.S.Verma,J.) RCP 3