JUDGMENT Jyotsna Rewal Dua , J. (Oral) - The challenge in this petition is to order dated 26.12.2019, (Annexure P-8), passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II, under Section 7A of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 , whereunder the inquiry was concluded and the petitioner-establishment was directed to deposit outstanding dues of Rs.8,33,301/- (Eight Lakh Thirty Three Thousand Three Hundred and one). 2. This order has been challenged by the petitioner- establishment primarily on the grounds that:- the case has been decided against the petitioner vide impugned order, on the basis of one sided version, without giving adequate opportunity to it to represent its case; during hearing on 12.12.2019, petitioner had been condemned unheard, on the basis of this hearing, the impugned order was passed on 26.12.2019. With these contentions, following prayers have been made in the writ petition:- '1. To issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the Annexure P-8 dated 26.12.2019 being one passed behind the back of the petitioner and in violation of principle of natural justice, equity and fair play. 2. To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No.3 to allow the petitioner due and reasonable opportunity of being heard before passing any order against it under the provisions of the Act ibid and in the proceedings under Section 7A of the Act before it.' 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the appended record. 4. Mr. Arun Verma, learned counsel representing the petitioner, contended that the impugned order has been passed ex parte, without affording adequate opportunity to the petitioner to present its case before the concerned authority and therefore to set right the wrong committed, instant petition has been preferred invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India , seeking direction to respondent to re-hear the matter. It has been submitted that petitioner being out of station could not remain present in the hearing held on 12.12.2019. 5. It has been submitted that petitioner being out of station could not remain present in the hearing held on 12.12.2019. 5. Perusal of the impugned order reveals:- that as many as 11 hearings were conducted for completion of the inquiry in question, culminating into the impugned order; whereas the petitioner chose to represent itself only on three occasions; During hearing on 21.11.2019, the representative of the petitioner was present and sought adjournment, the same was granted as a last opportunity to appear on the next date (12.12.2019) in the interest of natural justice; On 12.12.2019, department- representative submitted his final report. However, despite being fully aware of date of 12.12.2019, next hearing, none appeared on behalf of the petitioner-establishment; whereafter the impugned order dated 26.12.2019, came to be passed. These facts have not even been specifically disputed in the writ petition. Be that as it may, under Section 7A of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, Section 7A (4) provides as under:- '(4) Where an order under sub-section (1) is passed against an employer ex parte, he may, within three months from the date of communication of such order, apply to the officer for setting aside such order and if he satisfies the officer that the show cause notice was not duly served or that he was prevented by any sufficient cause from appearing when the inquiry was held, the officer shall make an order setting aside his earlier order and shall appoint a date for proceeding with the inquiry: Provided that no such order shall be set aside merely on the ground that there has been an irregularity in the service of the show cause notice if the officer is satisfied that the employer had notice of the date of hearing and had sufficient time to appear before the officer. Explanation- Where an appeal has been preferred under this Act against an order passed ex parte and such appeal has been disposed of otherwise than on the ground that the appellant has withdrawn the appeal, no application shall lie under this sub-section for setting aside the ex parte order. Explanation- Where an appeal has been preferred under this Act against an order passed ex parte and such appeal has been disposed of otherwise than on the ground that the appellant has withdrawn the appeal, no application shall lie under this sub-section for setting aside the ex parte order. In fact effective remedies are available to the petitioner against the impugned order dated 26.12.2019 passed under Section 7-A(1) Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 , not only under Section 7-A(4) of the Act as extracted above but also under Section 7-B in form of review of the order as well as under Section 7-I in form of appeal to the Tribunal. This position has not been disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner. In view of the effective, efficacious and alternative remedies available to the petitioner under the provisions of Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 against the impugned order, and considering the facts of instant case, in my considered view the instant writ petition is not maintainable and is accordingly dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to avail the appropriate alternative remedies available to him in accordance with law. It is clarified that observations made above are only for purpose of adjudicating the instant writ petition and shall not be construed as an opinion on merits of the matter. All rights & contentions to the parties are left open. Petitioner can claim the exemption for the period spent in this litigation while computing the limitation period, if any, in pursuing the appropriate remedies in accordance with law. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.