Arijit Pasayat, C.J.
1. Disagreeing with the views expressed by a Division Bench of this Court in M/s. Wire Netting Stores and Anr. vs. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and Ors. (1981) L.I.C. 1015, reference has been made to a larger Bench to consider whether Section 7-A of the Employees Provident Fund Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (in short the 'Act') is vocative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short 'Constitution'). In the said case, it was held that in the absence of provision for appeal from the order of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (in short the 'Commissioner') Section 7-A of the Act was hit by Article 14 of the Constitution.
2. Though the question has become of academic interest, in view of insertion of Section 7D to 7P of the Act inter alias dealing with Constitution and functioning of Tribunal to deal with appeal from an order under Section 7-A even otherwise the view expressed in that case is not correct. Mere absence of an appellate forum would not render the provision relating to adjudication unconstitutional. A similar view was expressed by a Constitutional. A similar view was expressed by a constitution Bench of the Apex Court in M/s. Gammon India Ltd. etc. v. Union of India and Others : (1974)ILLJ489SC .
3. While testing the validity of the Maharashtra Debt Relief Act, on the ground of procedural unfairness in the absence of the appellate provision, in the case of the Fatehchand v. State of Maharashtra : [1977]2SCR828 , it is observed:
'Does the absence of a right of appeal render the procedure unreasonable? It depends. Where the subject-matter is substantial and fraught with serious consequences and complicated questions are litigatively terminated summarily, without a second look at the findings by an appellate body, it may well be that unfairness is inscribed on the face of the law, but where little men, with petty debts, legally illiterate and otherwise handicapped, are pitted against money-lenders with stamina, astuteness, awareness of legal rights and other superiority , if the purpose of instant relief is to be accomplished, the provision of an appeal may, in many cases, prove a built-in body trap that frustrates and ruins the hand-to-mouth debtor. No surer method of baulking the object can be devised than enticing the debtor into an appellate bout. Daughter gone and ducats too, will be the sequel . Of course, where the enquiry is a travesty of justice or violation of provision, where the finding a perversity of adjudication or fraud on power, the High Court is not powerless to grant remedy even after the recent package of Constitutional amendments.'
4. Merely because no appeal is provided against the order under Section 7-A 'is a matter of no moment' (vide K.L. Gupta) v. Corporation Greater Bomaby : [1968]1SCR274 , Chinta Lingam v. Government of India : [1971]2SCR871 , Pannalal Binjraj v. Union of India : [1957]1SCR233 . the decision of the Supreme Court while considering the virus of Section 14-B of the Act, puts the controversy beyond a shadow of doubt. In Organo Chemical Industries v. Union of India AIR 1979 S.C. 1803 it was held 'the absence of a provision for appeal or revision can be of no consequence. 'We may also note that the validity of the provision had been considered by the various High Courts and there is almost unanimity that the provision is intra vires. We are in a agreement with the views expressed by the various High Courts i.e. in M/s. Inter State Transport Agency Sitamarhi v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Patna 1983 L. I.C. 940 ; T.Marimuthu Handloom Factory, Madurai M/s. Kandasamy Textiles, Handloom Merchants v. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Madras and another (1990) 1 LLJ 555 ; Prakash Kothari v. Regional P.F. Commissioner, Maharashtra & Goa (1990) 2 LLJ 217; Kshetriya Khadi Gramodyog Samiti Kumher v. Union of India and Others 1995 L. I.C. 315 . Additionally in Sumedico Corporation and Another v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner : (1999)ILLJ1170SC it has been held that after establishment of the Tribunal the controversy has really become academic. Accordingly, we dismiss this writ petition.