HIGH COURT OF GHHATTISGARH 1 BILASPUR WRJT PETITIDN N0, 2951 OF 2004 PETmONER M13 S. Narindar Singh 8: Co., through its partner Manjit Signgh, S/o Late S. Narindar Singh, aged about 52 years, R/o HIG-69, MP; Nagar, Korba (CG). Versus Union of mdia, through Secretary, Ministry cf Labour, Gavemment of india, New Delhi. 2. Empioyee Provident Fund Organisation. through Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Regional Office, Raipur (CG). (Writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of india) Single Bench: Hon’ble Shri Setish K. Agnihotri, J. RE$PONDENTS 1 . Present : Shri M.P.S. Bhatia, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Ajay Batik, Advocate appears on behalf of Shri S.K. Beriwal, standingecounsel for the Union of indie/respondent No. 1 . Shri Pradeep Saxena, counsel for the respondent No.2. ORAL ORDER (Passed on this 19“; day of August, 2008) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 6-8-2004 (Annexure-Pl1) as also the orders dated 26—5-2004 (Annexure-Pi2) & 13-7-2004 (Annexure-P/3) are bad on account of the tact that no notice was served as required under the provisions of Section 7A of the Employees‘ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short “the Act, 1952’). 2) Sub-section (3) of section 7A of the Act, 1952 providee that “no order shat! be made under sub-section (1), unless the employer concerned is given a reasonable opportunity of representing his case,“ 3) Admitting fact of the case is that the notice issued by the authorities could not be served on the petitioner on account of the fact that the petitioner has changed his address. W, \ W 4) Be that as it mayi since the impugned orders dated 6-8-2004 (Annexure-PH), 26—5-2004 (Annexure-PIZ) & 13—7-2004 (Annexure-Pi3) were passed without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner/employer as required under sub-section (3) Section 7A of the Act, 1952, it is expedient that the orders may be reviewed after affording oppertunity of hearing to the petitioner/employer. 5) in view of the above, the impugned orders dated 6-8-2004 (Annexure-P/1), 26-5-2004 (Annexure-PI2) & 13-7-2004 (Annexure-PI3) are accordingly quashed. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Raipur is directed to consider and decide the dispute invoived in this petition after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitionerlemp|oyer, in accordance with law and on its own merits. 6) Accordingly, the matter is remanded hack to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Raipur, with the aforesaid direction and the netitioner shall appear before the Commissioner on 18—9-2008 and partioipate & co—operate throughout. , For the foregoing reasone, the writ petition is allowed to the above extent. 8) ConseCtuently, M. (W.). P.No.258’l 12004 stands dis Sal m'h0E1 r) W } g