HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 2379 of 2025 (M/S) MS Qualymed Pharma Pvt Ltd ….....Petitioner Versus Employees Provident Fund Organization and Another ….….Respondents Present:- Mr. Gopal Narayan and Mr. Amar Murti Shukla, Advocates for the petitioner. Mr. Hem Chandra Joshi, Advocate for the State. JUDGMENT Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral) By means of the instant petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs:- i. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned notice dated 10.02.2025 (Annexure No.3 to the writ petition), notice to show cause of warrants of arrest dated 22.03.2025 (Annexure No.4 to the writ petition) and recovery warrant dated 20.05.2025 (Annexure No.6 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent no.2. ii. Issue any other or further writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper int eh circumstances of the case. iii. To award the cost of the petition in favour of the petitioner. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned orders/notices have been passed under Section 7-Q of the Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Act, 1952 (“the Act”); initially, the orders were passed against M/s Kranti Automobile Ltd. From whom the establishment was purchased by the petitioner; there 2 is no provision of appeal against any order that has been passed under Section 7-Q of the Act. Section 7-I of the Act provides for appeal in other matters, including proceedings under Section 14-B of the Act. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that initially the orders were passed against M/s Kranti Automobiles Ltd., but the establishment has been purchased by the petitioner. Therefore, as per Section 17-B of the Act, the liability is that of the petitioner now; the impugned orders have been passed under Section 14-B and 7-Q of the Act, which is appealable under Section 7-I of the Act. 5. Section 7-I of the Act reads as follows:- “7-I. Appeals to Tribunal.—(1) Any person aggrieved by a notification issued by the Central Government, or an order passed by the Central Government or any authority, under the proviso to sub- section (3), or sub-section (4), of section 1, or section 3, or sub- section (1) of section 7A, or section 7B except an order rejecting an application for review referred to in sub-section (5) thereof, or section 7C, or section 14B, may prefer an appeal to a Tribunal against such notification or order. (2) Every appeal under sub-section (1) shall be filed in such form and manner, within such time and be accompanied by such fees, as may be prescribed.” 6. Undoubtedly, under Section 7-Q of the Act, the provision is made with regard to the interest payable by the employee, and Section 14-B of the Act makes provisions with regard to the power to recover damages. It is apparent in the instant matter, initially, the proceedings were initiated against M/s Kranti Automobile Ltd. with regard to belated payments and amount payable under Sections 7-Q and 14-B of the Act. The impugned order dated12.08.2024 records as follows:- “A summon was therefore issued to the employer in relation to this establishment vide PD notice No.UK/DDN/0034135/000/Enf 512/Damages/51129 dated 18/10/2023 enclosing therewith a statement showing the details of belated payments made during the above said period and amount payable under section 7Q and 14B (Annexure A), calling upon him to show cause why damages on belated remittances as required under section 14B of Employees’ Provident funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 should not be recovered from him. Further, explaining the circumstances leading to the action of levy of damages, furnishing the details of the damages proposed to be levied and proposing a hearing fixed on 3 14/11/2023 either in person or through an authorised representative duly authorised to do so. During the proceeding held on 14/11/2023, 14/12/2023, 15/01/2024, 16/01/2024, 13/03/2024, 10/04/2024, 10/05/2024, 06/06/2024, 03/07/2024 and 31/07/2024 none appeared on behalf of establishment before the authority for attending the proceeding under Section 14B and 7Q of the Act. Sufficient numbers of opportunities establishment. So it is presumed that establishment has accepted the damage notice. Accordingly, the case is reserved for order.” 7. The part of interest cannot be read in isolation to the main order. They are to be read together. That is what has been incorporated in the impugned order dated 12.08.2024. 8. In the impugned order dated 10.02.2025, reference has been made to Section 17-B of the Act, because it is the case of the petitioner that he has purchased the establishment now, and similarly, the position has been explained in the impugned communication dated 20.05.2025. 9. Section 7-I of the Act makes provisions for the appeal. Under such situation, the appeal goes to the tribunal. There is an alternate, statutory, efficacious remedy available to the petitioner. Therefore, this Court does not see any reason to make any interference in the writ petition. Accordingly, the petition deserves to be dismissed at the stage of admission itself. 10. The writ petition is dismissed in limine. (Ravindra Maithani, J) 12.08.2025 Ravi Bisht