THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 23073 OF 2011 O R D E R : Heard Sri A.K. Jayaprakash Rao, learned counsel for the writ petitioner and Sri R.N. Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Organization. This Writ Petition is directed against the orders passed on 03.08.2011 by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (C & R), the Employees’ Provident Fund Organization, Hyderabad, rejecting the application submitted by the petitioner herein on the ground that no sufficient grounds have been shown for entertaining the said application. The relevant facts for our enquiry are these:- An Enforcement Officer of the Employees’ Provident Fund Organization appears to have visited the corporate office of the petitioner at Hyderabad and directed them to produce the relevant records relating to their employees, who are engaged at various project sites, as the petitioner is undertaking construction activities of roads, highways and dams. Obviously, the Provident Fund Organization wanted to satisfy itself that all the employees, who are otherwise covered by the provisions of the Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, are extended the necessary benefits after collecting the employees’ and employers’ contribution. It is submitted that a representative of the petitioner company attended the enquiry when it was taken up on 03.05.2011. By then, the report from the Enforcement Officer was not received and hence, no adjudication could take place on 03.05.2011. Therefore, the matter was adjourned to a subsequent date. It is now pointed out that the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (C&R) has passed orders on 28.06.2011. In the said order, the dates on which the hearing was taken up have been chronicled. On some occasions, the representatives of the petitioner company appeared and on some other occasions, there was no representation. It is noted that having taken time on 05.06.2010, for producing the records, the representative of the petitioner company has failed to turn up on 27.01.2011. Thereafter, it was recorded that the case was finally posted to 02.06.2011. Unfortunately, the said order does not disclose as to when the notice fixing the date of hearing on 02.06.2011 has been communicated to the writ petitioner. However, at page 20 of the paper book filed in support of this Writ Petition, the adjournment notice dated 20.05.2011 intimating that the enquiry, which is adjourned on 03.05.2011, is posted to 02.06.2011, at 11.30 a.m., was placed. This adjournment notice fixing the date of hearing as 02.06.2011 has been received by the petitioner company on 06.06.2011, i.e. after the date of the enquiry. Therefore, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner company on 02.06.2011, for want of knowledge of the date of hearing. Hence, the petitioner company has filed an application on 19.07.2011, after receipt of the order dated 28.06.2011, requesting to set aside the said order and to provide them an opportunity of hearing before the matter is concluded. This application has been rejected by the impugned order dated 03.08.2011 finding that there is no justification behind the representative of the petitioner company in not attending the enquiry on 02.06.2011. From the factual narration, it emerges that the enquiry was last held on 03.05.2011, by the respondent, but the enquiry could not be completed on the said date, inasmuch as the report from the Enforcement Officer does not appear to have been received in the matter. Therefore, the matter was adjourned. Through the adjournment notice dated 20.05.2011, the date of hearing fixed for 02.06.2011 was intimated. If this adjournment notice did not reach the petitioner company in time, i.e. any day prior to 02.06.2011, it cannot be blamed for its non-appearance on 02.06.2011 at the time when the enquiry was taken up. There appears to be some justifiable cause and reason behind the absence of anyone on behalf of the petitioner at the time when the enquiry was conducted on 02.06.2011. It is no doubt true that the order dated 28.06.2011 has meticulously mentioned the number of occasions on which there was no representation made on behalf of the petitioner company and only on few occasions, there appears to be some representation made on behalf of the petitioner company. The basic principle of law is this: justice must not only be done, but must appear to have been done. The fact that the petitioner company has attended the enquiry on 03.05.2011 has not been doubted. On that day, the enquiry could not be proceeded any further, as the report from the Enforcement Officer was awaited. Therefore, the enquiry was adjourned on that day. The next date of hearing was fixed as 02.06.2011, but there was no mention made in the order dated 28.06.2011 as to the date on which the said notice was delivered to the petitioner. If the statement of the petitioner company is correct that it has received the notice on 06.06.2011, it cannot be faulted for its default in attending to the enquiry on 02.06.2011. While the anxiety of the officer concerned is writ large, but at the same time, no order should be passed in violation of the principles of natural justice by a quasi-judicial authority. Such orders become useless. They will not serve the purpose for which the functions of quasi-judicial authorities are exercised. They only provide a fertile breeding ground for unending litigation. Hence, keeping these factors in mind, I set aside the order passed on 03.08.2011 as well as the order passed on 28.06.2011. The matter is remanded for further enquiry to the respondent Regional Provident Fund Commissioner. To avoid the possibility of procrastination of the proceedings any further, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner will take up for hearing the matter on 06.09.2011 at or after 11.30 a.m in his office. The petitioner company shall produce the necessary material for consideration of the Regional Provident Fund Officer by then. If the enquiry could be completed on 06.09.2011, it is open to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner to take an appropriate decision in the matter, after considering the entire material that was brought on record. If, for any reason, the enquiry could not be completed on 06.09.2011, it is open to him to fix an appropriate date for hearing on 06.09.2011 itself and receive acknowledgment from the representative of the petitioner company in the office file maintained by the respondent, so that the transmission loss/delay of notice of hearing can thus be avoided. If the writ petitioner company either fails to avail this opportunity of producing the necessary material on 06.09.2011 before the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner or on any other subsequent date to which the enquiry stands adjourned, it is open to the respondent to finalize the proceedings based upon the material available on record. The Writ Petition, to the extent indicated supra, stands disposed of. No costs. Registry is directed to communicate a copy of this order to the Respondent Regional Provident Fund Commissioner within a week from today. ---------------------------------------------- (NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J) 23rd August 2011 ksld