[Employees Provident Fund Act] No Appeal Lies Against Rejection Of Review Plea, Writ Petition Is Maintainable: Allahabad High Court

Relying on its earlier decision in Chandra Shekhar Azad University of Agriculture and Technology Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II and Another, the Allahabad High Court has reiterated that a writ petition would be maintainable against the order in review under Section 7-B of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 as no statutory appeal is provided against such order.

Petitioner was involved in running of franchise of Sagar Ratna in Meerut Cantt., Meerut. Proceedings under section 7A of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 were initiated against the petitioner wherein a demand for recovery of provident fund dues, amounting to Rs.23,05,278/- was issued against the petitioner.

Subsequently, order under Section 7A of the Act of 1952 was passed directing the petitioner to deposit the provident fund dues of Rs.23,05,278/- based on the assessment report of the Area Enforcement Officer. Upon receiving the order, petitioner filed a review application under Section 7B of the Act which was rejected on grounds of delay in filing the review application.

Petitioner approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the order rejecting the review application.

On the objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition against the order in review by the counsel for respondent, counsel for petitioner relied on Chandra Shekhar Azad University of Agriculture and Technology Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II and Another where the Allahabad High Court held that

“A reading of the provisions of Section 7-B of the Act makes it clear that an Application for Review that is rejected, leads to an order from which no appeal lies. If an order rejecting an Application for Review were to be challenged, certainly a writ petition would be competent from that order alone. In that challenge, the Court would be required to see whether the Authority was right in rejecting the Application for Review. In a petition of that kind, the order passed under Section 7-A of the Act, that has not been reopened by granting the Review, would not be under scrutiny of this Court. This would be so because an application under Section 7-B of the Act rejecting an Application for Review would leave the order under Section 7-A not only intact, but there would be no merger with the order passed under Section 7-B, in such a case.”

Relying on the aforesaid, Justice Prakash Padia held that the writ petition against the rejection order on review application was maintainable.

On merits of the case, the parties have been directed to exchange affidavits.

Case Title: M/S Metro Amusement Pvt. Ltd. Abu Plaza, Abulane v. Union Of India And Another [WRIT - C No. - 9281 of 2025]

Counsel for Petitioner :- Abhijeet Mishra, Nipun Singh, Naman Agrawal

Counsel for Respondent :- Jagdish Pathak, Udit Chandra

Click Here To Read/Download Order