1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR ---------------------------------------------------- SPL. APPL. WRIT No. 513 of 2008 JODHPUR CENTRAL CO-OP BANK LTD. V/S ASST. PROVIDENT FUND COMM. & OTHERS. Mr. PP CHAUDHARY, for the appellant. Mr. DEEPAK CHOUDHARY, G.A. for the State. Date of Order : 14.7.2008 HON'BLE SHRI N P GUPTA,J. HON'BLE SHRI KISHAN SWAROOP CHAUDHARI,J. ORDER ----- Heard learned counsel for the appellant at length. The appellant challenged the order Annex.7 dated 25.2.2008, by way of writ petition. By the said order, the respondent directed the appellant to pay the amounts, as determined to be payable under Sec. 14-B and 7-Q of the Employees' Provident Fund & (Miscellaneous Provisions Act), 1952. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition by impugned order, on the ground of availability of alternative remedy of regular appeal under Sec.7-I of the Act of 1952. Assailing the order impugned, it was contended, that since in the present case, the order 2 under Sec.14-B was wholly without jurisdiction, as there did not exist relationship of employer and employee, so as to hold the appellant to be the employer, the order could not be passed, more so, when in Annex.4, in Para 6 thereof, a controversy was raised on this behalf, which was required to be determined under Sec.7-A and, that until and unless determination is made under Sec.7-A, no amount could be levied under Sec.14-B. The next submission made is that, in any case, under Sec.7-I, appeal lies only against the order passed under Sec.14-B, and no appeal lies against the order passed under Sec.7-Q, and since Annex.7 is a composite order, there being no remedy of appeal available, against the order under Sec.7-Q, the writ petition was required to be entertained. Vide order dated 28.05.2008, show cause notice was issued, but nobody has appeared for respondent No.1. In our view, in view of the averments contained in Para 6 of the memo of appeal, referring to the old history about the appellant being directed to deposit the contribution vide the notice, on which, the appellant joined issue, and the matter was decided against the appellant, vide order dated 28.04.1998, against which, appeal was decided against the 3 appellant, in the year 2000, and then review petition was decided in the year 2005, it cannot be said that declining to entertain the writ petition on the ground of alternate remedy, is in any manner wrong. We make it clear that by this observation, we do not mean to say anything on merits of sustainability under Sec. 14-B, or liability of the appellant, either ways. This we have observed only for the purpose of deciding the question, as to whether the learned Single Judge was in error in declining to entertain the writ petition or not? So far as the contention, about the order, being composite order, is concerned, a reading of Sec. 14-B, shows that it does not prescribe any straight jacket formula of levying compensation, but requires adjudication, by the competent authority, on the parameters laid down under Sec. 14-B. On the other hand, Sec. 7-Q is automatic in its application, and the amount of liability incurred thereunder, also does not require any determination, as there is no free play in the joints. In that view of the matter, there is no question of filing any appeal, against calling upon the appellant to discharge the liability under sec. 7-Q. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submits that since this court is not 4 inclined to entertain the appeal, the appellant may be granted liberty to file appeal before the tribunal, within eight weeks form today, and the appellant will deposit the amount of interest, however, till the appellant files appeal within the time given by this court, recovery of the amount levied under Sec. 14-B in Annex.7, may be stayed. In the totality of the circumstance, we are inclined to accede to this request. Accordingly, in view of the above discussion, we do not find any error in the order of the learned Single Judge. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. However, the appellant is given liberty to file appeal before the Tribunal, against the order Annex.7, within the period of eight weeks form today, and recovery of the amount, levied under sec. 14-B shall remain stayed, till the prayer is considered by the appellate tribunal, with a condition that the appellant will deposit the amount levied under Sec. 7- Q, within the period of three weeks from today. It is further made clear that if this time, the amount under Sec. 7-Q is not deposited within 5 three weeks, this appeal shall stand dismissed unconditionally. It is also made clear that the appellant will not be granted further extension of time. It is further directed that in case, the appellant deposits the amounts, levied under Sec. 7-Q, within the period of six weeks from today, and files the appeal, before the Tribunal, within eight weeks form today, the tribunal shall decide the appeal on merits and shall not dismiss the appeal, on the ground of limitation. ( KISHAN SWAROOP CHAUDHARI ),J. ( N P GUPTA ),J. /ns. /