HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 430 of 2005 (M/S) Prestige Onida Limited …. Petitioner .. Versus Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner and others … Respondents Mr. Ramji Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. S.K. Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 2. 27th March, 2009 Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. In this matter an objection has been raised by the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner has an alternative remedy under Section 7 I of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 for filing an appeal before the Tribunal. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that an alternative remedy is not an absolute bar for filing the writ petition and secondly, the ground for the alternative remedy does not exist inasmuch as the impugned order has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice as the petitioner has not been heard before the impugned order was passed. It is indeed a settled position of law that in case the law provides two remedies, one before the authority which has passed the order and another at an appellate stage, then it would mean that both the parties must pass just and reasoned orders after providing an opportunity of hearing. It does not mean that one authority may pass an order without opportunity of hearing and opportunity of hearing may be given only at the appellate stage. Therefore, indeed an opportunity of hearing is the essence of the matter and which must be provided before such orders are passed. However, it has been fairly stated by Mr. Ashok Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondents that this 2 Court may remand the matter to the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Dehradun who will pass an order afresh after giving full opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Hence the order dated 4.4.2005 is quashed and the matter is remanded to the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Dehradun to hear the matter afresh. The petitioner shall cooperate in this matter and will not take unnecessary adjournments. It is expected that the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner shall dispose of the matter in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. With these observations, writ petition is disposed of. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 27.3.2009 Avneet 3