Manik Chand Chopra vs Employees Provident Fund Organization

Seeking review of order dated 26.10.2015 passed in W.P.(L) No.7471 of 2013 the petitioner has filed this civil review petition.Â

The petitioner, aggrieved of the Writ Court’s order, initially approached the Letters Patent Court in L.P.A. No.706 of 2015, however, it was not

pressed and accordingly the Letters Patent Appeal stood disposed of by an order dated 09.01.2017.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of certain documents obtained through RTI a reference of which finds mention in order

dated 09.01.2017 passed in L.P.A. No.706 of 2015, the petitioner has preferred the present review petition. It is submitted that in the documents

provided to the petitioner through RTI the respondents themselves admit that petitioner’s name is not recorded as owner of M/s

Vrindavan Garden still notices were issued to him.  Â

Order dated 26.10.2015 passed in W.P.(L) No.7471 of 2013 would reflect that on the ground of availability of statutory remedy of appeal under the

Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 the writ petition was dismissed, however, a liberty was reserved with the

petitioner to avail appropriate remedy in accordance with law. In the present proceeding, it is not the case pleaded by the petitioner that on

admitted facts the order impugned before the Writ Court was passed in breach of the rules of natural justice or in breach of the provisions under the

Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. Jurisdiction of the respondent-authority has also not been challenged. This review

petition appears to have been filed on the ground that in the documents furnished to the petitioner the respondents themselves have admitted that the

petitioner is not the owner of M/s Vrindavan Garden. Â

Be that as it may, this issue, if at all has substance, can also be raised before the appellate authority by the petitioner. No ground akin to the

grounds indicated under Order XLVII Rule 1 and 2 CPC has been urged in the present proceeding by the petitioner. Â

In the above facts, finding no ground to review order dated 26.l0.2015, this review petition is dismissed. I.A. No.1852 of 2018 and I.A. No.180 of

2018 stand disposed of.     Â