KAILASH MAHTO Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned counsel for the respondents, Mr. P. P. N. Roy vehemently submitted that as the efficacious alternative remedy is available under the provisions of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, which requires detailed evidence to be led and the enquiry to be conducted under Section 7A of the Act, 1952.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued out the case, in detail claiming provident fund amounts from respondent No. 3 and respondent No. 2 is not deciding the provident fund amount of the petitioner.

(3.) Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts & circumstances of the case, I see no reason to entertain this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, mainly for the reason that the efficacious alternative remedy is available to the petitioner under the provisions of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. The petitioner is claiming Provident Fund amount from M/s Laxmi Steel Industry, Distt:-