SHAKTI TRANSPORT Vs. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition has been filed against the order of the first respondent Organisation seeking payment of P.F. contribution from the petitioner Management.

(2.) As against the order impugned in the writ petition, an appeal is provided under the provisions of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. According to the petitioner, a Review has been filed, but without passing any orders in the Review Petition, the first respondent is attempting to freeze the bank account of the petitioner Management.

(3.) In any case, this Court is unable to entertain the writ petition for the simple reason that effective appeal remedy has been provided under the Act and instead of availing the appeal remedy, the petitioner has chosen to approach this Court directly by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Even otherwise, the petitioner has chosen to file a Review petition against the order passed by the authority. In such an event, it is open to the petitioner to pursue the Review Petition and it is definitely not open to them to approach this Court in the interregnum, before a decision could be given in the Review Petition.