- (1.) The petitioner company has challenged the order being Annexure P-10 under which the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (Circle III), West Bengal informed the Company that the application for review under Section 7-B(1) of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 cannot be considered and requested to comply with the order dated October 8, 2002. The petitioner by invoking the writ petition contended before this Court that this communication tantamounts to a rejection of the review application from which no appeal lies under Section 7-I before the Tribunal. Hence, the writ Court can entertain the same and grant relief. Upon going through Section 7-I, I find that the appeal can be entertained from any original order under Section 2-A or Section 7-B except an order rejecting an application for review referred to in sub-section (5) thereof. Consequently, the Court has gone through such provision and found that from an order of rejection in an application of review, no appeal shall lie. Therefore, as a natural corollary, a question arose when review shall lie. Review lies when from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or for any other sufficient reason. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner did not annex the copy of the review application at the first instance when this Court was directed to file a supplementary affidavit annexing the same. From the application to review, I find excepting the word review all ingredients of appeal are there.
(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that as and when the words for any other sufficient reason are incorporated under Section 7-B(l) of the Act, review application can be taken out for the same and if the authority did not choose to enter upon such applications, then it will tantamount to rejection of the prayer for review.
(3.) I am of the view that other sufficient reasons cannot be unconnected with the ingredients of review. Such other sufficient reasons mean the reasons within the parameter of the review. When the ingredients of appeal are already available for the purpose of due disposal by the appellate authority under Section 7-I, such provisions for any other sufficient reasons cannot independently override the same. There the mis-conception of law lies. However, it is a good effort on the part of the learned counsel for the petitioner to establish the case. But, according to me there is no formal rejection of the prayer for review. Since no formal rejection has been made since I find from the application made by the petitioner for review is in effect, in the form of an appeal, I cannot construe that the communication as made by the authority concerned is an order of rejection of the application for review. However, since various legal points have been agitated by the petitioner, he is entitled to prefer an appeal since the Court has already construed that the communication under Annexure P/10 dated January 17, 2003 is not an order of rejection of review. This application which has been made before the authority concerned is directed to convert to an application of appeal subject to formalities and be filed along with the order of this Court within a period of one week from date of communication of such order. The appellate tribunal is entitled to consider the matter in accordance with law as early as possible within a period of one month from date of filing the same. However, the period in between the filing of the writ petition and obtaining certified copy of the order as ready for delivery by the Court be excluded from the period of limitation, if any, in preferring such appeal.;