1 wp1473.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1473 OF 2011 Rena Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Limited ..PETITIONER -VERSUS- The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner and others ..RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. V.D. Hon, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. K.B. Choudhari, Advocate for respondent. ..... (CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.) DATED : 7TH APRIL, 2011. PER COURT : 1. Heard Advocate Mr. Hon for petitioner and Advocate Mr. Choudhari for respondent. Contention is, the principles of natural justice were not followed in an enquiry under Section 7A of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 or then while hearing the appeal by the appellate authority. The attention is invited to the order passed by the Competent authority in Section 7A enquiry on 6th December, 2006 and the appellate order dated 20th October, 2010 for said purpose. Learned counsel states that mention of name of the petitioner in appellate order or one of the contention raised by him is incorrect 2 wp1473.11 and no oral arguments were advanced. 2. Advocate Mr. Choudhari disputes this. He contends that the appellate order clearly records the contentions advanced by Advocate Mr. Gupta appearing for petitioner before the Employees' Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal. 3. In appeal, the memo filed before the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, the order passed under Section 7A on 6th December, 2006 has been assailed on various grounds. Perusal of the order dated 6th December, 2006 reveals that the employer had failed to attend hearing on 6th December, 2006. It also appears that the report of Enforcement Officer was handed over to the employer and he was expected to file reply thereto but that rely also not filed. Because of this absence, the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner Solapur has passed the impugned order on 6th December, 2006 itself. 4. Impugned order does not show consistent refusal by petitioner to attend the proceedings or then any adjournment obtained by them. Thus for single absence, on very same day the impugned order came to be passed. Report of Enforcement Officer to which the petitioner was suppose to file reply has been relied 3 wp1473.11 upon in that order. 5. Total demand against the petitioner is of Rs. 5,31,200/- with interest amount of Rs. 1,31,299/-. While filing appeal as required under Section 7O, the petitioner has deposited 50% of the amount and additional amount of Rs. 45,338/-. 6. In this view of the matter, the interest of justice will be met by directing the petitioner to deposit the balance amount with the respondent within a period of two weeks from today. If the amount is so deposited the Authority shall permit the petitioner to file its Say on the report of Enforcement Officer dated 09.10.2006 and thereafter shall proceed with hearing. After hearing the matter, fresh order under Section 7A shall be passed as early as possible and in any case by 31st July, 2011. 7. If the petitioner succeeds in the matter, the amount deposited by the petitioner shall be refunded to him within further period of four weeks thereafter. 8. Subject to this, the impugned order dated 06.12.2006 passed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner is hereby quashed and set aside. 4 wp1473.11 9. Needless to mention that the appellate order dated 20th October, 2010 therefore does not survive and same is quashed and set aside. 10. Rule made absolute accordingly. No costs. (B.P. DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE gas/wp1473.11