Judgment :- 1. Indian Agricultural Research Institute has invoked extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court with a prayer for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 22.9.2011 passed by the Recovery Officer in exercise of powers conferred under Section 8B of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. Section 8B of the Act reads as follows:- "8-B. Issue of certificate to the Recovery Officer : -(1) Where any amount is in arrear under Section 8, the authorised officer may issue, to the Recovery Officer, a certificate under his signature specifying the amount of arrears and the Recovery Officer, on receipt of such certificate, shall proceed to recover the amount specified therein from the establishment or, as the case may be, the employer by one or more of the modes mentioned below :- (a) attachment and sale of the movable or immovable property of the establishment or, as the case may be, the employer; (b) arrest of the employer and his detention in prison, (c) appointing a receiver for the management of the movable or immovable properties of the establishment or, as the case may be, the employer; Provided that the attachment and sale of any property under this section shall first be effected against the properties of the establishment and where such attachment and sale is insufficient for recovering the whole of the amount of arrears specified in the certificate, the Recovery Officer may take such proceedings against the property of the employer for recovery of the whole or any part of such arrears. (2) The authorised officer may issue a certificate under sub-section (1), notwithstanding that proceedings for recovery of the arrears by any other mode have been taken. " 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner challenged the impugned order on the ground that the Recovery Officer is not competent under the Act to pass any adjudicatory order, but can issue Recovery Certificate or take steps to recover the amount of arrears. 3. " 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner challenged the impugned order on the ground that the Recovery Officer is not competent under the Act to pass any adjudicatory order, but can issue Recovery Certificate or take steps to recover the amount of arrears. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention referred to the definition of the Authorised Officer given under Section 2(aa) of the said Act, which reads as follows:- "authorised officer means the Central Provident Fund Commissioner, Additional Central Provident Fund Commissioner, Deputy Provident Fund Commissioner, Regional Provident Fund Commissioner or such other officer as may be authorised by the Central Government, by notification in the Official Gazette." 4. Counter has been filed. In the counter, the stand taken by the respondents is as follows:- "I submit that the respondent initiated an inquiry under Section 7A of the Act to determine the dues payable by the petitioner from 1/1975 to 11/2001 by order dated 12.8.2002, a sum of Rs.11,73,249.95 was determined as dues payable by the petitioner for the said period. Subsequently, a sum of Rs.71,293.95 was determined as PF dues for the period 12/2001 to 05/2002 by another order dated 21.10.2002. Both the orders were not challenged by the petitioner. Owing to the failure of the petitioner to remit the sum determined under Section 7A as per the above said orders, the authorized officer issued recovery certificate to the Recovery Officer under Section 8C of the Act for recovering a sum of Rs.12,44,543.90 by order dated 7.2.2003. I further submit that the authority under Section 7A of the Act by one more order dated 12.8.2003 had determined a sum of Rs.29,274/-towards the dues payable for the period from 06/2002 to 4/2003. As such the petitioner is liable to pay a sum of Rs.12,73,817.90 (Rupees twelve lakhs seventy three thousand eight hundred and seventeen and paise ninety only). For the sake of convenience, the same is brought in the form of a table below:- of the Act was challenged by the petitioner by filing a writ petition in this Court, and the writ petition was dismissed in view of the availability of alternative statutory remedy of appeal. 6. The petitioner thereafter filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority and deposited a sum of Rs.3 lakhs as directed by the Appellate Authority. The appeal was also subsequently dismissed as time barred. 7. 6. The petitioner thereafter filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority and deposited a sum of Rs.3 lakhs as directed by the Appellate Authority. The appeal was also subsequently dismissed as time barred. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of the Appellate Authority was challenged by filing a writ petition in this Court which was also dismissed on the ground that there is no provision for condonation of delay under the Act. The petitioner has preferred a writ appeal, in which notice has been issued and the appeal is pending before the Honourable Division Bench of this Court. 8. In view of the stand taken by the respondents and in view of the admitted fact that there is an adjudicatory order passed under the Act, copy of which has also been attached in the typed set of papers filed by the respondents in this Court, the total recovery under the order is for a sum of Rs.12,44,543.90 (Rupees twelve lakhs, forty four thousand, five hundred and fourty three and ninety paise only). Out of which, in view of the deposit of Rs.3,00,000/-(Rupees Three lakhs only), the balance of amount is being recovered by the Recovery Officer. 9. A reading of Section 8B of the Act clearly shows that it is within the jurisdiction of the Recovery Officer to take steps to recover the adjudicated amount. Therefore, the impugned order is within jurisdiction. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner therefore cannot be accepted as the impugned order is only prohibitory order in the nature of attachment of movable property of the petitioner. 10. No ground is made out to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of writ jurisdiction. 11. No merit. Dismissed. No costs. 12. Consequently, connected MPs are closed.