EXECUTIVE ENGINEER Vs. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. B.K. Pattanaik, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. S.K. Dash, learned counsel for the R.P.F. Commissioner.

(2.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed in P.D. Case No. 164/2003-04 demanding a damages of Rs. 84,297.00 under Section 146 of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, hereinafter referred to as the 'E.P.F. Act'.

(3.) IN the said view of the matter, the order impugned in this case is appealable. Attention was drawn to the Court order passed by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Governing Body Vyasanagar (Auto) College, Jajpur Road v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-Bhubaneswar, (W.A. No. 368/2011), wherein a Division Bench of this Court while examining the question of availing alternative remedy, relied on a Constitution Bench decision of the Honb'le Supreme Court in the case of K.S. Rashid & Son v. Income Tax Investigation Commission and Others AIR 1954 SC 207 and held that the Article 226 of the Constitution confers on the High Court a very wide power of the matter of writ petition, However, the remedy of writ is absolutely discretionary remedy and High Court has the discretion to refuse to grant any writ if it is satisfied the aggrieved party can have a suitable relief elsewhere. Further, in the case of Kerala State Electricity Board and Another v. Kurieri E. Kalathil and Others AIR 2000 SC 2573 : (2000) 6 SCC 293, the Honb'le Supreme Court has held that while dealing with similar issue writ petition should not be entertained unless the party exhausted the alternative/statutory efficacious remedy.