ORDER : 1. This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India whereby and whereunder the orders dated 31.07.2018 and 09.10.2018 as contained under Annexure-9 and 10 passed under Section 7-A of the Employees’ Funds & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 hereinafter referred as the Act, 1952 are under challenge. 2. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the order passed under Section 7-A of the Act, 1952 is without jurisdiction since the Para Teachers for whom the determination has been made of deposit of the statutory contribution in the respective E.P.F. account is not coming under the fold of definition of employee. 3. Mr. P.A.S. Pati, learned counsel appearing for the Employees’ Provident Fund has made objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground of availability of alternative remedy of review as also the statute provides under Section 7-B and 7-I of the Act, 1952 and therefore, his submission is that the question of jurisdiction as has been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the basis of the fact that the Para Teachers are not coming under the fold of employee as per the definition of Employees provided under the Act, 1952 since is leading to its determination based upon the fact, therefore, it cannot be said to be pertaining to the issue of jurisdiction and therefore, the case will not coming under the fold of exception to maintain the writ petition as per the decision judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Whirlpool Corporation Vrs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai & Ors., reported in (1998) 8 SCC 1 . 4. This Court after having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on appreciation of their rival submissions is of the view that although the provision of Article 226 of the Constitution of India does not impose any restriction in entertaining the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India even on the ground of availability of alternative remedy as has been decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Whirlpool Corporation Vrs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai & Ors., (supra) but subject to exception i.e. if the order is without jurisdiction or is contrary to the statutory provision or there is infringement in the fundamental rights, in that eventuality even if the alternative remedy is available the writ petition can be entertained by the High Court i.e. for the reason that no entertaining the writ petition itself imposed restriction upon the High Court. 5. This Court on the basis of the aforesaid legal position, has examined the orders dated 31.07.2018 and 09.10.2018, the order dated 09.10.2018 is in consequence of the determination made by the authority in exercise of power conferred under Section 7-A of the Act, 1952 whereby and whereunder as per the order dated 31.07.2018 the determination has been made regarding quantum of the amount found to be in default for certain period. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner tried to impress upon the Court that the Para Teachers are not coming under the fold of definition of employees since they are only getting honorarium and not wages. This Court upon such submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is of the view that whether the Para Teachers will come under the fold of definition of employees as per the definition stipulated under the provision of Act, 1952 which pertains to its adjudication depending upon the fact and therefore, what has been contended by Mr. Krishna Murari, learned counsel for the petitioner that this issue pertains to the jurisdiction is not acceptable to this Court and therefore, this Court is not coming under the fold of exception said to without jurisdiction, therefore, this Court is of the view that in case of availability of two alternative remedies i.e. the review as provided under Section 7-B and appeal as provided under Section 7-I. It would not be just and proper to entertain this writ petition for adjudicating the factual dispute and therefore, this writ petition is held to be not maintainable on the ground of availability of alternative remedy. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. 8. It is open for the petitioner to approach before the alternative forum as provided under the statute.