JUDGMENT The petitioner seeks quashment of order dated 20.3.2002 passed by Recovery Officer, Employees' Provident Fund Organisation, 7 Race Course Road, Indore, Camp Bhopal, wherein the petitioner is directed to be detained in civil prison for a period of 6 months, commencing with the date of order, by invoking the provisions contained in section 8B of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). This petition is being resisted on the grounds, firstly, that the proceedings before Recovery Officer are not criminal proceedings and secondly, an alternate remedy in appeal, is provided under the Act. As per scheme of the Act, the enquiry is conducted by any of the officers, authorised under section 7 A of the Act, for determining the money due from employers. It is also provided under sub-section 4 of section 7 A of the Act that in case an ex-parte order is passed on account of absence of employer, in spite of service of notice, the employer may, within 3 months from the date of communication of the order, apply for setting aside the order. A remedy in appeal is also provided against the ex-parte order. Then, another remedy of review is also provided under section 7B of the Act, against the order passed under section 7 A of the Act. It is also noteworthy that against the bye-parte order passed under section 7A of the Act, a remedy of appeal is provided in sub-section (1) of section 7 of the Act. Since 75% of the amount, which is determined to be due under section 7A of the Act, has to be deposited before the filing of the appeal under sub-section ''O" of section 7 of the Act, this petitioner has knocked the door of the Court under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, with a view to avoid the aforesaid deposit. In support of this agrument that non-providing proper opportunity of hearing, vitiated the proceedings before Recovery Officer, Shri Nair, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has drawn the Court's attention to Kanaiyalal Prabhudas Maru and others v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Maharashtra and Goa and others reported in 2002 - I LLJ 38, wherein it is found dictated by High Court of Bombay, in a writ filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, that before issuance of warrant of arrest against the defaulter under section 8-B of the Act, the conditions specified in Rule 73(1)(a) and (b) of Part V of Schedule II to Part V Rule 73, are to be complied with, the non-compliance of which vitiates the proceedings of issuance of warrant. But, the Court in this petition is not exercising the writ jurisdiction and hence, the aforesaid authority does not help the petitioner. Thus, on account of availability of effective alternative remedy to the petitioner, this petition is not found maintainable. In the result, this petition stands rejected at the stage of motion hearing.