SATYA POOT MEHROTRA, J. - (1.) The present application has been filed seeking review of the Order dated November 12, 2008 whereby the writ petition was dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative remedy to the petitioner.
(2.) The said Order dated November 12, 2008 is reproduced below: "Heard Sri Rajendra Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Amit Negi, learned counsel for the respondent. I he present writ petition has been tiled by the petitioner against the order dated August 29, 2008 (Annexure 8 to the writ petition) passed under Section 7-A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and the order dated September 30, 2008 (Annexure 10 to the Writ Petition) passed under Section 7-B of the said Act. It is not disputed that against the said orders, the petitioner has an alternative remedy of filing Appeal under Section 7-I of the said Act. In view of the alternative remedy available to the petitioner, the Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative remedy to the petitioner.
(3.) Sri Rajendra Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Order dated September 30, 2008 (Annexure 10 to the writ petition) passed under Section 7-B of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, was under challenge in the said writ petition. The view expressed by this Court in the aforesaid Order dated November 12,2008 that an Appeal under Section 7-I of the aforesaid Act could be filed against the said Order dated September 30, 2008 also, is not correct, and the matter requires review by this Court.;