- (1.) The short point that has been taken in the writ petition and urged at the hearing is that the Provident Fund Authorities applied the provisions of the Central Public Works Department (CPWD) Manual in relation to the first writ Petitioner without the first writ Petitioner being made aware thereof. The writ Petitioners suggest that since the Provident Fund Authorities are, in a sense, the complainant and the arbiter, the slightest violation of the principles of natural justice must be guarded against.
(2.) On behalf of the Respondent authorities, it is submitted that in view of the Section 7-I of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, the order challenged in the present proceedings should have been carried by way of an appeal to the appropriate forum and not made the subject-matter of a writ petition.
(3.) Though such challenge on the ground of there being an alternative remedy is sought to be repelled on behalf of the writ Petitioners on the argument that an appeal entails a statutory pre-deposit which renders the remedy illusory; that can not be a good enough reason for not preferring an appeal and carrying the challenge under Article 226 of Constitution. An appeal is not an inherent right but is a creature of statute. If the statue can confer a benefit, such benefit may be tinged with any condition imposed.;