A.Lala, J. - (1.) It appears to this Court that the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Jalpaiguri, in the order impugned directed the petitioners to pay certain amount for the period March 1989 to September 1997 and October 1997 to February 1998.
(2.) It further appears from the figures that the claim amount is Rs. 68,43,066/- and Rs. 1,94,884/- respectively totalling to Rs. 70,37,950/-. After giving particulars of the figure derived from the order impugned, the concerned authority stated that the amount of damages should be paid by the aforesaid employer/petitioner company in the respective Employees Provident Fund accounts maintained by the bank within a period of 15 days failing which a proceeding for recovery of such sums will be made under section 8 of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. It was also directed that in case of failure to deposit and penal damages within the stipulated period, section 7Q of the Act for further simple interest will be added. The petitioner company invoked the writ jurisdiction without preferring appeal by saying that alternative remedy is no bar in the facts and circumstances of this case.
(3.) According to Mr. Abhijit Chatterjee, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that from an order under section 14B i.e. to recover the damages by the authority there a provision of appeal but from an order under section 17B, a new insertion in the Act has no provision of appeal. Upon going through the such section 7-I, being a provision of appeal to the respective tribunal, I find that the statement of Mr. Chatterjee is substantially correct but a close scrutiny is required to be made before taking any decision by the Court of law. It has to be ascertained whether the self imposed restriction in respect of alternative remedy will be maintained in this particular case or will be given a relaxation.;