Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This petition has been filed for quashing order of the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Patna (Respondent No. 2) communicated through letter dated 13.5.2004 (Annexure-1) in which it was held that provision of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for the sake of brevity) was applicable to the employer/establishment (petitioner) and directed it to immediately start making compliance with the provisions of the Act and to deposit all the outstanding dues with respect to the employees since the date of coverage. 3. The said order is appealable in view of Section 7-1 of the Act which prescribes that 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 Sec. 1, or Sec. 3, or subsection (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 Sec. 14B, may prefer an appeal to Tribunal against such notification or order. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is unable to avail the opportunity of appeal under the aforesaid provision as the Tribunal is not functioning. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the tribunal is functioning and appeals are being filed therein by aggrieved persons and only the Presiding Officer is presently not there but he is going to be appointed very soon. He further submits that the petitioner is intentionally avoiding the appellate Tribunal as the facts of the case would clearly show the illegality of the petitioners claim due to which it had also not appeared before the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, although initially it had appeared but there after did not appear in spite of full knowledge of the proceeding and several adjournments granted by the said authority. 5. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, since there is an adequate and efficacious remedy of appeal available to the petitioner, I do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned order of the authority concerned and accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.