ORDER: Heard Sri G.Vidhya Sagar, learned Senior counsel, representing Sri Sai Prasen Gundavaram, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri G.Venkateshwarlu, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents. 2. This Writ Petition is filed to quash the impugned proceedings dated 22.06.2022 issued by 1st respondent vide proceedings No.TS/RO/KKP/7B/Z-VI/51616/2022-23/1738, as illegal. 3. 1st respondent has initiated enquiry under Section 7(A) of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short, ‘the Act’) against the petitioner Institution. He has passed an order dated 20.04.2022 under Section 7(A) of the Act, holding that the petitioner herein is liable to pay dues to the tune of Rs.8,08,58,888/- and the special allowance and Shift Spread Over Allowances as extended by the petitioner to its employees from April, 2014 to October, 2018 constitute basic wage and are subject to EPF contributions. The petitioner herein had filed review petition under Section 7(B) (1) of the Act seeking to review the aforesaid order dated 20.04.2022 passed under Section 7(A) of the Act. Vide order dated 22.06.2022, 1st respondent had rejected the aforesaid review application filed by the petitioner. Challenging the same, the present writ petition is filed by the petitioner. 4. Sri G.Vidhya Sagar, learned Senior Counsel, would submit that the petitioner herein specifically contended that the petitioner has discovered certain new and important facts/evidence, which it is not having knowledge and could not produce the same before 1st respondent during the enquiry under Section 7(A) of the Act. The said facts were not considered by 1st respondent in the impugned rejection order dated 22.06.2022. In the impugned order, 1st respondent has not considered the said aspect/grounds raised by the petitioner in reviewing the application filed under Section 7(B)(1) of the Act. 5. Whereas, Sri G.Venkateshwarlu, learned counsel appearing for respondents, would submit that all the grounds raised by the petitioner herein are appeal grounds and the petitioner has to file statutory appeal under Section 7(I) of the Act and raise aforesaid grounds. On the grounds raised in the review application filed by the petitioner, it cannot seek review of the order dated 20.04.2022 of the 1st respondent passed under Section 7(A) of the Act. He would further submit that the petitioner herein instead of filing appeal, filed the aforesaid review application which was rightly rejected by 1st respondent. On the grounds raised in the review application filed by the petitioner, it cannot seek review of the order dated 20.04.2022 of the 1st respondent passed under Section 7(A) of the Act. He would further submit that the petitioner herein instead of filing appeal, filed the aforesaid review application which was rightly rejected by 1st respondent. It is a reasoned order, it does not warrant interference by this Court by invoking inherent powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. With the said submissions, he sought to dismiss the writ petition. 6. In view of the aforesaid rival contentions, it is relevant to refer Section 7(B) (1) of the Act which deals with the review of the order passed under Section 7(A) of the Act, which is extracted below:- 7B. Review of orders passed under section 7A.— (1) Any person aggrieved by an order made under sub-section (1) of section 7A, but from which no appeal has been preferred under this Act, and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of such order may apply for a review of that order to the Officer who passed the order: Provided that such officer may also on his own motion review his order if he is satisfied that it is necessary so to do on any such ground. (2) ………... (3) Where it appears to the officer receiving an application for review that there is no sufficient ground for a review, he shall reject the application. 7. Therefore, to file review petition, there should be discovery of new and important matter or evidence which after the exercise of due diligence or not within the knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by it at the time when the order was made. The petitioner Institution can also file the aforesaid review under Section 7(B)(1) of the Act if there is mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or for any other sufficient reason. The petitioner Institution can also file the aforesaid review under Section 7(B)(1) of the Act if there is mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or for any other sufficient reason. This Court perused the grounds raised by the petitioner in the aforesaid review application seeking review of the order dated 20.04.2022. 8. It is trite to note that in the aforesaid review application, the petitioner herein had raised several grounds specifically contending that 1st respondent, the authority under Section 7(A) of the Act, failed to consider certain aspects, documents filed and contentions raised by the petitioner. In the entire grounds in review petition, there is no contention raised by the petitioner that from the discovery of new or important matter or evidence which after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the petitioner Institution or could not be produced by it at the time when the order was made. It is not the case of the petitioner herein that on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record for any other sufficient reason, the petitioner Institution desires to obtain a review of the aforesaid order dated 20.04.2022 passed by 1st respondent under Section 7(A) of the Act. Therefore, the petitioner now cannot contend that it has raised specific grounds under the review application filed under Section 7(B) of the Act and the same were not considered by 1st respondent. 9. Hon’ble Apex Court in State of West Bengal Vs. Kamalsen Gupta, (2008) 8 SCC 612 had an occasion to deal with the scope of review which is as follows:- At this stage it is apposite to observe that where a review is sought on the ground of discovery of new matter or evidence, such matter or evidence must be relevant and must be of such a character that if the same had been produced, it might have altered the judgment. In other words, mere discovery of new or important matter or evidence is not sufficient ground for review ex-debito justiciae. Not only this, the party seeking review has also to show that such additional matter or evidence was not within its knowledge and even after the exercise of due diligence, the same could not be produced before the Court earlier. 10. Not only this, the party seeking review has also to show that such additional matter or evidence was not within its knowledge and even after the exercise of due diligence, the same could not be produced before the Court earlier. 10. It is relevant to note that as per Section 7(B) (3) of the Act, 1st respondent is having power to reject the application for review if he comes to a conclusion that there is no sufficient ground for review. Therefore, there is no error in the impugned rejection order dated 22.04.2022. Thus, the petitioner failed to make out any case warranting this Court to interfere with the order impugned herein. Therefore, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 11. Section 7(B) (5) of the Act says that no appeal shall lie against the order of the officer rejecting an application for review, but an appeal under this Act shall lie against an order passed under review as if the order passed under review were the original order passed by him under Section 7A of the Act. Therefore, appeal lies against the order passed under Section 7(A) of the Act, under Section 7(I) of the Act, before the Employees Provident Funds Tribunal. 12. In view of the above discussion, this Writ Petition is dismissed. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to file statutory appeal under Section 7(I) of the Act challenging the order dated 20.04.2022 passed by 1st respondent under Section 7(A) of the Act. Consequently, miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending, shall also stand closed.