IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1220 of 2006 SMT.PREMLATA DEVI, W/O SRI RAJENDRA PD SINGH WORKING PARTNER OF M/S DEEPSHIKHA PICTURE PALACE, BEGUSARAI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE=P.O. RAMDIRI, P.S. MATIHANI, DISTRICT- BEGUSARAI. … PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LABOUR, GOVT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI. 2. THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, SUB-REGIONAL OFFICE, NEW VAKALATKHANA BUILDING, COURT COMPOUND, MUZAFFARPUR-842001. … RESPONDENTS. For the Petitioner: Mr. Vivekanand Pd. Singh, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. R.S. Pradhan, Sr. Advocate. ----------- 3. 24.01.2011 Petitioner Cinema House is aggrieved by the order dated 30.4.2004, Annexure-4 whereunder its liability under Section 7A of the Employees Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952(hereinafter referred to as the Act) has been fixed for the period July 1997 to December, 2003 amounting to Rs. 1,85,348.00. Against the order dated 30.4.2004, petitioner filed review petition under Section 7B of the Act which was also dismissed under orders dated 31.3.2005, Annexure-6. By filing the present writ petition the petitioner has 2 questioned the validity of the aforesaid two orders contained in Annexures 4 and 6 on the ground that while passing the two orders the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Sub- Regional Office, Muzaffarpur did not consider the fact that during the period in question the Cinema House was leased out in favour of Sri Ram Chandra Singh, Sri Sunder Lal and Sri Sukumar Singh vide three separate registered lease document which required the lessee to contribute for the Cinema House workers in terms of Section-17B of the Act but without appreciating the contents of Section 17B of the Act and the terms of the three lease document the liability has been fastened on the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel further submitted that the Cinema House also remained under seizure by the District Magistrate, Begusarai the licensing authority for the period of two months between 28.8.2000 to 22.10.2000, the Cinema workers also resorted to illegal strike for 4 months from 20.10.1995 to 18.2.1996 and 3 thereafter from 21.6.1997 to 10.7.1997 for 20 days and then from 20.7.1998 to 12.12.1998 again for 4 months 22 days. During the period of the aforesaid closure of the Cinema House petitioner was not liable to contribute towards the Provident Fund of the workers. The original order dated 30.4.2004 passed under Section 7A of the Act is appealable before the tribunal. It, however, appears that petitioner instead of availing the remedy of appeal preferred review against the order dated 30.4.2004 which was dismissed under orders dated 31.3.2005. In terms of Sub-section (V) of Section 7B of the Act after dismissal of the review petitioner can still file appeal against the original order dated 30.4.2004 as also subsequent order dated 31.3.2005. 3. Having heard counsel for the parties, I disposed of this writ petition directing the petitioner to avail the remedy of appeal against the aforesaid two orders dated 30.4.2004 and 31.3.2005, Annexures 4 and 6. In case, the 4 appeal is filed within 30 days of the receipt of the certified copy of this order the appellate tribunal may consider to condone the delay in filing the appeal against the aforesaid two orders. While entertaining the appeal the tribunal may also consider the request of the petitioner to waive the condition to deposit the 75% of the liability amount in terms of Sub- section 7O of the Act as petitioner has already deposited Rs.75,000.00 in compliance of the impugned order Annexure-4. It goes without saying that if the liability as assessed under original order, Annexure-4 is reduced the amount deposited shall be adjusted towards future liability. Ibrar/- ( V. N. Sinha, J.)