M/s Kumaon Motors Owners Union Ltd vs Recovery Officer, Employee Provident Fund Organization Sub Regional Office, II Floor & another

Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.

The petitioner is an employer as defined under Section 2 (e) of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (from

hereinafter referred to as “Actâ€​). The respondent authorities vide order dated 18.05.2018 has fixed a liability on the petitioner under Section 7A of

the Act. This order was challenged by the employer in a review application under Section 7B of the Act before the Assistant Provident Fund

Commissioner, who has rejected the review application of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has not mentioned the provision under which

the review application has been filed, although Section 7B of the Act clearly provides for a review. Section 7B of the Act reads as under:-

“[7B. Review of orders passed under section 7A.â€"(1) Any person aggrieved by an order made under sub-section (1) of section 7A, but from

which no appeal has been preferred under this Act, and who, 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, desires to obtain a review of such order may apply for a review of that

order to the Officer who passed the order:

Provided that such officer may also on his own motion review his order if he is satisfied that it is necessary so to do on any such ground.

(2) Every application for review under sub-section (1) shall be filed in such form and manner and within such time as may be specified in the Scheme.

(3) Where it appears to the officer receiving an application for review that there is no sufficient ground for a review, he shall reject the application.

(4) Where the officer is of opinion that the application for review should be granted, he shall grant the same:

Provided that,â€

(a) no such application shall be granted without previous notice to all the parties before him to enable them to appear and be heard in support of the

order in respect of which a review is applied for, and

(b) no such application shall be granted on the ground of discovery of new matter or evidence which the applicant alleges was not within his

knowledge or could not be produced by him when the order was made, without proof of such allegation.

(5) No appeal shall lie against the order of the officer rejecting an application for review, but an appeal under this Act shall lie against an order passed

under review as if the order passed under review were the original order passed by him under section 7A.]â€​

Learned counsel for the respondents â€" Mr. D.S. Patni has very fairly submitted that the Act does provide for a remedy under Section 7B of the

Act. This being the admitted position of law, even if the petitioner had not mentioned the provision under which he filed a review application, the

reviewing authority ought to have considered the matter within the parameters of Section 7B of the Act and should not have rejected the review

application of the petitioner by passing a telegraphic order, as has been done in the present case.

In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 20.07.2018 is hereby set aside. Let the reviewing authority consider the matter

and pass a fresh order in accordance with law.