1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8078 OF 2008 The Chairman, Revan Siddeshwar Bidi Utpadak Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, Solapur ..Petitioner. Vs. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II and others ..Respondents. .... Mr. Nitin Jamdar for the Petitioner. None for the Respondents. .... CORAM: DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. 15th December, 2008. P.C. : 1. The order that is challenged in these proceedings has been passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner in exercise of powers under Section 7-C of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. An order under Section 7-C is subject to an appeal before the Tribunal under Section 7-I. Parliament having provided for the remedy of an appeal, particularly in the context of a social welfare legislation, this Court would not be justified in entertaining a writ petition under Article 226 of the 2 Constitution. The Petitioner will have to be relegated to the remedy of an appeal where all questions can be urged and decided. Learned counsel, however, submitted that (i) The Order under Section 7-C ought to have been passed by the same officer who had passed the original order under Section 7-A and whereas the earlier order was passed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, the order under Section 7-C has been passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and it was urged that there was an absence of jurisdiction; (ii) An appeal under Section 7-I is subject to the requirement of a deposit under Section 7-O and (iii) There is an absence of employer employee relationship. All these issues which have been urged before the Court can well be urged and decided before the appellate tribunal. The question as to whether the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner has jurisdiction under Section 7-C does not lie outside the province of the appellate function of the Tribunal under Section 7-I. Similarly, though there is a requirement of deposit under Section 7-O, the Tribunal is empowered for reasons to be recorded to waive or reduce the amount to be deposited. The order of the Tribunal in that regard is amenable to judicial review 3 under Article 226. The question as to whether the employer employee relationship exists is a mixed question of law and fact in which it is always appropriate for the duly constituted appellate body to pass orders. For all these reasons, no case for interference has been made out. The Petitioner will be at liberty to seeks recourse to the appellate remedy. All questions in that regard are kept open. 2. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner has requested the Court that since the Petitioner intends to seek recourse to the appellate remedy, the Respondents may be directed not to adopt coercive proceedings for a reasonable period in the meantime. The request is fair. In order to enable the Petitioner to seek recourse to the remedy in appeal, the Respondents are directed to desist from adopting any coercive steps to implement the impugned order for a period of four weeks from today. The Petition is accordingly dismissed. *****