1 WP3958/11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3958 OF 2011 M/s Deepali Theater Petitioner V E R S U S Asstt. Commissioner of Provident Fund (C) Respondent Mr. Patil Milind M. (Beedkar), Advocate for the petitioner Mr. K.B. Choudhari, Standing Counsel for respondent CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. DATED : 1st July, 2011 ORAL ORDER : 1. This writ petition is challenging the order dated 15th October, 2010, passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Employees’ Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal in case ATA No. 685(9)2006. 2. The petitioner was the appellant. The appeal was preferred against the order passed by the Provident Fund authority under Section 7-A. It is common ground that the appellant did not participate in the proceedings that were initiated by the provident fund authority under Section 7-A. It is mentioned in the impugned Judgment and order that despite giving notice and opportunities / adjournments, the appellant did not participate the inquiry proceedings under Section 7-A. 3. There is one more peculiarity in this case. Initially summons was issued under Section 7-A on the allegation that the petitioner had failed to deposit provident fund contribution for two years between August, 2003 and June, 2005. As said above, the petitioner did not appear before the authority and the authority proceeded with the inquiry. In the inquiry, the authority found that the petitioner was liable to make contribution of the provident fund 2 WP3958/11 from 1991. This finding apparently fell beyond the scope of the initial summons. It is comparatively a bigger liability. The learned Presiding Officer has not discussed this aspect of the case at all. In my view, the petitioner deserves an opportunity to participate in the inquiry under Section 7-A so that the provident fund authority can conduct the inquiry afresh in his presence. In order to afford him an opportunity to do so, the petitioner should be saddled with costs of Rs.10,000/-. ORDER 1. On the petitioner’s depositing Rs.10,000/- with the provident fund authority on or before 10th August, 2011, the writ petition would stand allowed and the impugned orders passed by the provident fund authority as well as the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal shall stand set aside. 2. The petitioner shall not expect fresh summons for the inquiry as to whether they are liable to pay contribution of provident fund from 1991 onwards. They shall submit their reply/say and supporting evidence on or before 30th August, 2011. In order to submit reply and evidence, the petitioner shall assume that the observations made in the order passed by the authority under Section 7-A would amount to a notice. 3. In above terms, writ petition stands disposed of. ( A.V. NIRGUDE, J. ) SRM/