- (1.) Heard Mr.Sunil Samdaria, learned counsel for the appellant.
(2.) In short, the facts indispensable for the present adjudication, are that the petitioner is a partnership firm and had started functioning in the year 1964, and according to it, after remaining functional for about 36 years, became defunct on 13.10.2000. The respondent-Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organization (Ministry of Labour, Government of India) Regional Office, Jaipur, issued a letter No.RJ/1405/Comp.II/3385 dated 18.8.2004 requiring it to deposit an amount of Rs.1,77,412/- on account of provident fund contribution, claimed to be payable by it. On receipt of this letter through its banker i.e.Vijaya Bank, the appellant/writ petitioner through its letter dated 10.9.2004 contended that the demand was illegal and invalid and nothing was due from it towards provident fund contribution as the same had been deposited till September 2000, and that, the firm had been closed with effect from 13.10.2000. As inspite of this, the respondent pursued the demand and eventually, issued the recovery certificate dated 11.4.2005 and letter/order dated 6.10.2009 seeking recovery of the amount of Rs.2,17,783/- from the appellant/writ petitioner, he approached this Court praying for annulment of the recovery certificate dated 11.4.2005 and order dated 6.10.2009. The respondent in his reply, while endorsing the demand, raised preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the appeal contending that an alternative remedy was available under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short, hereafter referred to as 'the Act').
(3.) The learned Single Judge, by the impugned judgment and order herein, rejected the challenge to the certificate dated 11.4.2005 and the order dated 6.10.2009 on the ground that the foundational order dated 18.8.2004 thereafter had remained unimpeached. It was held as well that an alternative remedy by way of appeal under Section 71 of the Act being available, invocation of the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was not called for. The appellant/writ petitioner was however, left at liberty to avail the remedy of appeal by taking appropriate steps for condonation of delay.;