ORDER Ram Mohan Reddy, J. 1. Though rule is with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties this petition is finally heard and disposed of by this order. Petitioner suffered an order of the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner determining Rs. 4,36,820/- as penal damages under Section14-B of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short, 'Act'). That order when called in question in this petition on the premise that the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Sub-Regional Office, Mysore was not invested with the jurisdiction to initiate proceeding or pass orders under Section 14-B of the Act. 2. Smt. Nalini Venkatesh, learned Counsel for the 1st respondent-Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner points to the notification dated 17-4-2002 Annexure-R1 to the statement of objections dated 1-7-2014 to submit that the Central Government, in exercise of powers conferred under Section 14-B of the Act, authorised the 1st respondent to exercise power to recover from the employer by way of penalty such damages under the Act for the respective areas mentioned in Schedule III in relation to factories/establishments covered under the provisions of the Act. According to the learned Counsel, in the light of the notification, the premise on which the writ petition is filed is no more available to the petitioner. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner does not seriously contest the contents of the notification Annexure-R1. In that view of the matter, no useful purpose will be served by keeping this petition on board, in the light of the notification dated 17-4-2002 investing a jurisdiction in the 1st respondent. The question formulated for decision making in this petition is answered in the affirmative holding that the 1st respondent had the jurisdiction to initiate the proceeding under Section 14-B of the Act. 4. In the result, this petition is rejected reserving liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal under Section 7-I of the Act along with an application under Section 7-0 for necessary interim reliefs and to call in question the order impugned before the Employees' Provident Fund Tribunal. Smt. Nalini Venkatesh, learned Counsel submits that the Central Government has since constituted a Tribunal at Bengaluru, for the States of Kerala, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Telangana, Goa and the Union Territories of Andaman and Nicobar Islands and Puducherry, vide notification dated 7-11-2014 and therefore petitioner has an alternative and efficacious remedy of filing an appeal in that Tribunal. Smt. Nalini Venkatesh, learned Counsel submits that the Central Government has since constituted a Tribunal at Bengaluru, for the States of Kerala, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Telangana, Goa and the Union Territories of Andaman and Nicobar Islands and Puducherry, vide notification dated 7-11-2014 and therefore petitioner has an alternative and efficacious remedy of filing an appeal in that Tribunal. It is further submitted that Presiding Officer of the Tribunal is yet to be appointed and would be done within a reasonable time. Petitioner, is therefore, permitted to file an appeal as soon as the Presiding Officer is nominated or appointed for the Tribunal at Bengaluru and until such time, the 1st respondent is disentitled to recover the amounts determined from the petitioner. In the event petitioner files an appeal within a fortnight from the date of constitution of appointment of the Presiding Officer, it is needless to state that the Tribunal is directed to consider the appeal without insisting upon the petitioner to file an application for condonation of delay since this petition is pending before this Court and rule issued. Petition is ordered accordingly.