JUDGMENT By the Court.—Writ petitioners-appellants, aggrieved by order dated 12.8.2009 passed by learned single Judge in Writ Petition No. 41139 of 2009, have preferred this appeal under Rule 5 Chapter VIII of the High Court Rules. 2. Short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the appellant No. 1 is an Inter College and the question arose as to whether it’s employees shall be covered under the provisions of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act. The Authority under the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) came to the conclusion that it is so covered. The writ petition filed against the foresaid order has been dismissed by this Court by order dated 9.1.2009 passed in Writ Petition No. 65155 of 2005 (Committee of Management, Mahabir Singh Inter College and another v. State of U.P. and others). 3. Thereafter, the liability of the appellants was quantified and the dues were determined under Section 7-A of the Act vide order dated 28.4.2009. The appellants challenged the aforesaid order in review and when the same was dismissed, preferred the writ petition inter alia praying for setting aside the order passed on review dated 2.7.2009 and further for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the authority to consider it’s review application dated 17.6.2009 filed under Section 7-B of the Act. The said writ petition has been dismissed by the impugned order. 4. Mr. Srivastava appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that the learned single Judge had dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the points agitated stand concluded by the judgment of this Court dated 9.1.2009 passed in the writ petition filed by the appellants earlier. He submits that the appellants may not challenge the order of the authority holding that the appellant’s institution is covered by the provisions of the Act but nothing prevents them to challenge the quantification. 5. We find substance in the submission of Mr. Srivastava that decision of this Court inter se between the parties shall not prevent the appellants from challenging the amount quantified for which appellant’s institution has been found to be liable. 6. Mr. Srivastava then contends that this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction can entertain the plea of the appellants and come to the conclusion that quantification of the liability is bad. 6. Mr. Srivastava then contends that this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction can entertain the plea of the appellants and come to the conclusion that quantification of the liability is bad. In this connection, our attention has been drawn to a Division Bench judgment of Patna High Court in the case of Kumar Brothers (Bidi) Private Ltd. and others v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Bihar, 1968 Lab. I.C. 1578 (Vol. 1, C.N. 378). We do not find any substance in the submission of the learned counsel and the decision relied on is clearly distinguishable. Existence of an alternative remedy may not be a bar to the jurisdiction of this Court. It is well settled that it is matter of discretion and not of jurisdiction. However, in the face of the remedy available to the appellants under the provisions of the Act itself, we are of the opinion that this writ petition is absolutely misconceived. 7. The appellants, if so advised, may take recourse to the remedy of appeal. In case they do so, needless to state that the same shall be considered in accordance with it’s own merit. 8. In case the appellants take recourse to the remedy aforesaid, the dismissal of the writ petition shall have no bearing on the same. 9. In the result, the appeal stands dismissed with the observations aforesaid. ————