The Allahabad High Court clarifies writ maintainability against rejection of review under Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952

In a significant verdict on April 24, 2025, the Allahabad High Court, in Writ-C No. 9281 of 2025, identified the maintainability of a writ under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution against rejection of a review application made under Section 7B of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (“EPF Act”), where no statutory appeal lies. The Petitioner had not challenged the original order passed under Section 7A of the EPF Act, which talks about determination of money due from the employer but had sought review under Section 7B of the EPF Act, which was rejected by the authority on account of delay. The Court held that such rejection does not interpose or merge with the original order but can be challenged on its own, through writ, as no appeal is maintainable thereunder as per Section 7B of the EPF Act. This alternate remedy was rejected by the court stating that where the statute provides none, the case does not bar writ jurisdiction, considering this the Court granted interim relief and stayed the order rejecting the application, subject to the Petitioners depositing 25% of the amount assessed. The Court explained that if the review application had been admitted and a fresh order had been passed, then, the order passed under Section 7A of the EPF Act would merge and the matter would become appealable. The judgment emphasizes the genuineness of resorting to writ jurisdiction against non-appealable rejection of review under the EPF Act.