In a recent ruling, the Allahabad High Court emphasized that a writ petition is maintainable against the rejection of a review application filed under Section 7-B of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, as no legal appeal is allowed against such rejection.
The case involved M/S Metro Amusement Pvt. Ltd., which operated a franchise of Sagar Ratna in Meerut Cantt., Uttar Pradesh. The company was issued a demand of Rs. 23,05,278/- under Section 7A of the EPF Act, following an assessment by the Area Enforcement Officer regarding provident fund dues.
Read Also:- Supreme Court reviews POSH Act compliance by States and Union Territories on key directions
After receiving this order, the company filed a review application under Section 7B of the Act. However, thbe review was dismissed due to delay in filing. Challenging this rejection, the petitioner approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
During the hearing, the respondent’s counsel objected, arguing that a writ petition was not maintainable in such matters. In response, the petitioner’s counsel referred to a previous decision in Chandra Shekhar Azad University of Agriculture and Technology vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II.
“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.”
The court in that case had clarified that since Section 7B does not provide a statutory appeal, the only remedy available is a writ petition. Also, such a petition would not reopen the original order under Section 7A unless the review had been accepted.
Read Also:- Supreme Court enforces UP guidelines on Gangster Act, quashes FIR against SHUATS director
Quoting and relying on this principle, Justice Prakash Padia ruled in favor of the petitioner. He confirmed that the writ petition challenging the rejection of the review application is legally valid and maintainable.
“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... the order under Section 7-A would remain intact.”
The Court did not comment on the merits of the original order but directed that both parties should now exchange affidavits, allowing the case to proceed further.
“A writ petition is the rightful remedy where the review under Section 7-B is rejected and no appeal exists under the EPF Act.” — Allahabad High Court
Case Title: M/S Metro Amusement Pvt. Ltd. Abu Plaza, Abulane v. Union Of India And Another [WRIT - C No. - 9281 of 2025]
Judgment by: Justice Prakash Padia
Petitioner’s Counsel: Abhijeet Mishra, Nipun Singh, Naman Singh
Respondent’s Counsel: Jagdish Pathak, Udit Chandra
