PAAYAL ENGINEERS Vs. ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Udgata, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Mr. Satpathy learned counsel for the Provident Fund authorities.

(2.) THE order of assessment dated 11th July, 2003, Annexure -3, passed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner in Case No. 7A/02/2003 is assailed in this Writ Petition. Mr. Satpathy raised a preliminary issue with regard to maintainability of the Writ Petition and submitted that as an Appeal is stipulated under the Act, this Writ Petition is not maintainable. Mr. Udgata at the other hand submitted that the order is palpably illegal and an apparent error has been committed apparent on the face of records for which the petitioners should not be directed to file an Appeal at Delhi, as such direction would cause irreparable loss and harassment to them. According to Mr. Udgata if a palpable illegality has been committed by the Provident Fund authorities, only because alternative remedy is available the doors of a Writ Court should not be shut.

(3.) IT is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner company that the petitioner company is a proprietorship concern and its proprietor was never a partner of M/s. Himalayan Engineering Corporation. As such, treating its independent unit, as a branch of other units of erstwhile M/s. Himalayan Engineering Corporation by the Provident Fund authorities and assessing its liability under the Act, is unjust, illegal and contrary to law.