1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 1345 OF 2010. (The Asstt. Provident Fund Commissioner .vrs. M/s. Shiv Pipes .) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : JULY 08, 2010. None for respondent even today. On 16.06.2010 this Court gave cane to the respondent to appear and contest with express warning that the matter will be disposed of finally at the stage of admission. Thereafter the matter was adjourned to 20.06.2010 and at the request of respondent it came to be adjourned to today. Shri A.Parihar, learned counsel for petitioner has pointed out that in memo of appeal as filed by the respondent before the Appellate Tribunal under Section 7-I of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 there is an admission that the number of employees were 30 and hence the provisions of the Act were 2 applicable to the establishment. He further contends that if, the order was found to be unreasoned or incomplete, in view of this admission the matter could have been sent back to the department for conducting appropriate enquiry under Section 7-A of the Act. With the assistance of the learned counsel for petitioner I, have perused the papers. Prima facie paragraph 6[b] of facts of the Appeal memo shows that the establishment is covered w.e.f. 25.06.1999 and number of employees with it was 30. The Appellate Tribunal has found that the order does not disclose documents relied upon for assessing the provident fund dues and the report of the Enforcement Officer or its details are not discussed in it and the report is also not enclosed with the reply was filed before it, hence, it found the impugned order unreasoned one. It has also made other observations in the order, however, in view of its earlier finding, it is apparent that the entire records of the enquiry under Section 7A of the Act were not before it, though it was deciding a statutory appeal. In this situation, I find that interest of justice can be met by remanding the matter back to the petitioner for holding fresh enquiry in accordance with the provisions of Section 7A of the Act, in the matter and only for that 3 purpose the impugned order dated 27.07.2009 is hereby quashed and set aside. The petitioner shall issue appropriate notice of hearing to the respondent and shall conduct the proceedings in accordance with the law. Writ Petition is thus allowed in the aforesaid terms. Rule accordingly. No costs. JUDGE Rgd.