HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No.4516 OF 2009 Dated 19-10-2010 Between: Rane Engine Valve Limited, a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at ‘Maithri’, 32, Cathedral Road, Chennai-600 086 and one of the plants at Survey No.177/20, Hyderabad, Vikarabad Road, Aziznagar, Hyderabad-500 075, represented by its President, Mr.G.Ram Kumar. …. Petitioner. And: The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (Compliance) Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation, Regional Office, Andhra Pradesh, Barkatpura, Hyderabad. ….Respondent. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No.4516 OF 2009 ORDER: This writ petition has been preferred by the principal employer calling in question the correctness and validity of the orders passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner of the employees’ Provident Fund Organisation on 6-1-2009 in terms of Section 7-A of the Employees’ Provident Fund Act, 1952 determining the petitioner as liable to pay a sum of Rs.48,81,241/- for the period from October, 1999 to November, 2007 in respect of several non-enrolled employees. For the present, I am not adverting in detail to the factual matrix as the controversy is sought to be narrowed down to a contention regarding violation of principles of natural justice committed while passing the impugned order. It is not in dispute that prior to passing the impugned order on 6-1-2009, notice of hearing, dated 15-12-2008 was issued, which reads as under: “The inquiry initiated under section 7 A of the EPF & MP Act, 1952 is adjourned and posted to 06-01-2009 at 3.00 P.M., (6-1-2009). You are therefore, advised to attend the inquiry on the said date along with your contractors duly informing them to attend the enquiry with their employees attendance Register and salary registers with their I.T. Returns as informed to them in the letter dated 21-10-2008 to examine the issue further.” From the above notice, it is clear that the principal employer is asked to attend the inquiry along with the contractors but the contractors themselves have not been put on notice of the said date of hearing dated 6-1-2009. Sri R.N.Reddy, learned Standing counsel has placed before me copy of the summons dated 21-10-2008 issued to the individual contractors requiring them to attend the hearing on 13- 11-2008. Since 13-11-2008 happened to be a holiday, the enquiry has thus been adjourned to 6-1-2009. There is no record to disclose that the summons dated 21- 10-2008 issued to the individual contractors have been delivered any time prior to 13-11-2008. In the absence of such record, it is reasonable to infer that that summons perhaps may not have reached them before 13-11-2008, the date fixed for their appearance and inquiry. Admittedly, no proceedings could take place on 13-11-2008 due to a holiday. Therefore, the proceedings have been adjourned to 6-1-2009. For that purpose, notice dated 15-12-2008 has been issued but unfortunately, the said notice has been issued only to the principal employer but not to the contractors. It is the principal employer which has been advised to bring the contractors along. If the presence of the contractors is found necessary by the competent authority, he ought to have ensured that the summons are dispatched by registered post with acknowledgment due to the correct address furnished by the principal employer. The recognised mode of communications is by sending them through registered post. If a notice is dispatched to the correct address by a party through registered post, a presumption, which is otherwise rebuttal, can be drawn that the notice has been delivered at that address, unless the same is returned undelivered by the postal authorities. Since there is no proof on record that the summons dated 21-10-2008 have been dispatched by registered post and since there is no material to rely upon for ascribing knowledge to the contractors to be present on 6-1-2009, I feel that the impugned order has been passed without providing a fair opportunity to the petitioner to establish its defence in the matter. I, therefore, consider it appropriate to set aside the impugned order and direct the respondent to serve notices for appearance on the contractors as well as the writ petitioner herein fixing the date of hearing as 21-12-2010. It shall be made clear in the notices that if the contractors desired to file their response in writing or seek to produce any material, they may do so on the said date. Any failure, either on the part of the writ petitioner herein or on the part of the contractors to attend to the schedule now fixed, will disentitle them to plead denial of proper opportunity to them. Only keeping this fact in mind, the date which is two months away from today has been chosen. It is appropriate to note that the proceedings have been pending for more than three years and benefits which are legitimately entitled and due to workmen/employees have not yet reached them. Therefore, this measure has been adopted by the Court, otherwise the proceedings may not reach a stage of finality in quick time. The writ petition is disposed of and the matter is remitted back for the purpose of redeteriming the amount of liability in terms of Section 7-A of the Act afresh. No costs. ______________________________________ Justice NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO Dated 19-10-2010. Dvs HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No.4516 OF 2009 Dated 19-10-2010