ORDER 18.05.2016Heard. This writ petition has been filed in assailing the order as contained in Annexure-7 which is an order passed under Section 14-B of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 The petitioner has taken ground in assailing the order dated 21.02.2011 passed in P.D. Case No. 6 of 2006-07 that in spite of the remand order having been passed by the Employees Provident Appellate Tribunal in ATA No. 237 (10)/2001, the petitioner has not been provided sufficient opportunity of being heard and in absentia the order has been passed while on the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite parties has submitted that the contention raised by the petitioner is absolutely incorrect rather after the remand order having been passed by the Tribunal, the petitioner has been noticed. The petitioner through its representative had appeared and thereafter personal hearing was also afforded and accordingly in his presence next date was fixed on 14.06.2006. but on several occasions in spite of specific date having been fixed, none represented the petitioner-establishment and thereafter however awaiting for few dates again the case was fixed on 17.7.2006 but none appeared nor any representation received from the establishment and as such taking into consideration the material available on record, the order has been passed under Section 14 –B considering the fact that the authority under Section 7-A has assessed the liability vide order dated 26.02.2001. It has been contended that on 11.01.2011 Advocate representing the petitioner-establishment appeared and filed vakaltnama and hazira and also filed the photocopy of the order the Tribunal which was against the assessment order under Section 7-A against which the writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 13104 of 2005 had been filed. It has been contended that in view of the order of the learned Tribunal rehearing of the case was concluded, order was passed, the amount was already realized towards EPF and allied dues from 7/96 to 10/99 and thereafter hearing under Section 14-B was initiated to assess the penal damages for the period from 7/96 to 10/99 and on the request having been made by the learned Advocate of the establishment the hearing was posted to 04.02.2011. But again on 04.02.2011 none was appeared on behalf of the establishment, hence the case was adjourned but even on subsequent date non represented the petitioner-establishment thereafter final order was passed by making assessment of the amount under Section 14-B and 7-Q of the EPF and MP Act 1952. It has been submitted that the petitioner has issued notice but he has not chosen to appear on most of the dates as such the authority has passed order on the basis of material available on record, hence there is no infirmity in the order impugned. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. The fact which is not in dispute in this case is that the petitoner establishment against whom proceeding under Section 7-A and 14-B has been initiated by putting liability upon the petitioner-establishment for non-payment of the statutory dues for the period from 7/96 to 10-99 of Rs.65,847/-. The petitioner being aggrieved with the order passed under Section 7-A of the Act 1952 has preferred an appeal before the appellate Tribunal being ATA No. 237 (10)/2001 and the learned Tribunal set aside the assessment order passed under Section 7-A and remitted the matter before the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Koraput for holding fresh enquiry under Section 7A (i)(b) of the Act and to reassess the dues after affording opportunity to the appellant to produce the relevant records. The opposite party had initiated a proceeding afresh, issued notice to the petitioner-establishment fixing a date for hearing as 14.06.2006 but none appeared nor any representation received from the establishment and the case was adjourned on 30.06.2006, the representative of the establishment appeared, filed petition which has been taken on the records by the authority, the case was adjourned to 17.07.2006, on the sald date none appeared nor any representation received from the establishment. On 20.05.2009 a letter was received by the Managing partner of the establishment with a request to drop the proceeding initiated under Section 14-B as the establishment was closed since 1999 and the case was fixed to 10.06.2010 but none appeared. Again the case was adjourned to 24.08.2010 none appeared. On 20.05.2009 a letter was received by the Managing partner of the establishment with a request to drop the proceeding initiated under Section 14-B as the establishment was closed since 1999 and the case was fixed to 10.06.2010 but none appeared. Again the case was adjourned to 24.08.2010 none appeared. It transpires from the order impugned that the writ petition has been filed being W.P. (C) No. 13104 of 2005 challenging the deposit of EPF dues from 7/96 to 10/99, hence awaiting for further response from the petitioner, the case was fixed on 20.09.2010 but on 20.09.2010 none appeared. It further transpires that none represented the petitioner-establishment on subsequent dates but however one Sri R.K. Minz, Advocate on behalf of the employer appeared and field vakalatnama and hazira with the photocopy of the Tribunal order which was against the assessment order under Section-7-A, against which the writ petition being W.P. (C) No. 13104 of 2005 was filed. It transpires from the order impugned that as per the direction of the learned Tribunal rehearing of the case was concluded, order was passed and the amount was realized towards EPF and allied dues from 7/96 to 10/99. Learned Tribunal after appreciation the fact, proceeded under Section 14-B to assess the penal damages for the period from 7/96 to 10/99. Proceeding under Section 14-B has been initiated and the case was posted to be listed on 04. 2. 2011 but none represented the petitioner. It further transpires from the record that on several occasions none represented the petitioner-establishment. Accordingly, the order has been passed under Section 14-B and 7-Q of the Act 1952 assessing the liability of the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 61,839.00 and Rs. 16,694.00 both under Section 14-B and 7 –Q with a direction to deposit within 15 days of receipt of the order. Thus, it is evident that the order passed under Section 7-A of the Act which has been challenged by the petitioner before the Tribunal and the Tribunal after setting aside order passed under Section 7-A has directed for rehearing and remitted the matter before the APFC, Koraput. Thus, it is evident that the order passed under Section 7-A of the Act which has been challenged by the petitioner before the Tribunal and the Tribunal after setting aside order passed under Section 7-A has directed for rehearing and remitted the matter before the APFC, Koraput. It further transpires from the order that the authority has passed an order under Section 7-A after giving opportunity of rehearing in pursuant to the order passed by the Tribunal, the case was concluded the order was passed and the amount was realized towards EPF and allied dues from 7/96 to 10/99 and thereafter a hearing under Section 14-B and 7-Q has been initiated. Thus, it is evident from the order passed under Section 14-B and 7-Q which is impugned in this writ petition that the petitioner time and again has been given notice to appear and in some of the date, the petitioner-establishment had appeared but in some of the date, the petitioner-establishment has not appeared and accordingly the order under Section 14-B and 7-Q has been concluded and the amount has been realized towards EPF dues. In view thereof, the order passed by the Tribunal is well reasoned. So far as the order passed under Section 14-B and 7-Q, it is also evident from the record, opportunity of being heard to the petitioner has been given but the petitioner has failed to produce the relevant record in defence rather against the order of Tribunal, W.P.(C) No. 13104 of 2005 was filed but the authority after taking into consideration the record of W.P.(C) No. 13104 of 2005 and after finding that the writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 13104 of 2005 had been filed challenging the order passed by the Tribunal in ATA No. 237(10)/2001 passed the order after taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner-establishment was liable to pay the dues for the period from 7/96 to 10/99, accordingly the penal damages has been assessed under Section 14/B and 7-Q of the Act 1952. This Court has called for the record of W.P. (C) no. 13104 of 2005 and from its perusal, it is evident that the prayer made in the writ petition is against the order passed by the Tribunal in ATA No. 237(10)/2001 and the said writ petition was finally disposed of vide order dated 28.03.2016 declining to interfere with the order passed by the learned Tribunal. 13104 of 2005 and from its perusal, it is evident that the prayer made in the writ petition is against the order passed by the Tribunal in ATA No. 237(10)/2001 and the said writ petition was finally disposed of vide order dated 28.03.2016 declining to interfere with the order passed by the learned Tribunal. The petitioner has challenged the order passed under Section 7-A , 14-B and 7-Q in this writ petition raising the dispute regarding the quantum and applicability of the Act 1952. But after the order having been passed by the authority, the petitioner has not chosen to appear before the EPF Appellate Tribunal as provided under Section 7-I of the Act 1952. So far as the claim of the petitioner on merit is concerned, since the order passed under Section 7-A, liability is imposed upon the petitioner directing him to deposit the EPF dues for the period from 7/96 to 10/99 within 15 days from the date of receipt of the order and as such the damages under Section 14-B and 7-Q has been assessed. Hence, in the backdrop of factual aspect that the petitioner-establishment is liable to pay the dues from 7/96 to 10/99 and the said order was passed after providing ample opportunity of being heard to the petitioner but the petitioner has not chosen to appear then it has been decided on the basis of material available on record and thereafter the order has been passed under Section 14-B and 7-Q of the Act. In view thereof, in my considered view, this Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot assume the power of the appellate Court. Further it is settled that this Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is supposed to judicially review if there is any error in the decision making process and not to decide correctness of demand in the nature of appeal. In view thereof, the writ petition lacks merit and accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.