SL. No Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS 65 WPMS No. 1921 of 2025 Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. Mr. Aayush Gaur, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rajesh Sharma, Advocate for the respondents. The challenge in this petition is made to the recovery certificate dated 23.04.2025 issued by the Employees Provident Fund Organization for recovery Rs. 6,65965/-. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. It is a case of the petitioner that the petitioner is a company covered under the provisions of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneaous Provisions Act, 1952 (“the Act”). Due to Covid-19 pandemic, the petitioner’s company also got adversely affected. No work was carried out and production was also stopped. The petitioner company went to substantial losses and it was much hard for the petitioner company to recover and to start production of its company. Under the provisions of the Act, the petitioner was required to deposit a sum of Rs. 3,19,662/- towards the interest payable on account of employees contribution to the Provident Fund. The petitioner paid that amount. But now, penalty has been imposed on the petitioner to the tune of Rs.6,65,965/- under Section 14B of the Act for which recovery has been initiated. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that during the Covid-19 pandemic period, the petitioner company went in losses. Despite that they have paid Rs.3,19,662/- towards interest, but now penalty has been imposed and recovery has been initiated. Learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the order passed under Section 14 B of the Act is appealable under Section 7 -I of the Act. Therefore, the petition is not maintainable. This is not disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner. Since there is a statutory alternate remedy, there is no question of entertaining the petition, it stands disposed of accordingly. (Ravindra Maithani, J.) 03.07.2025 Jitendra