THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY WRIT PETITION No. 4399 of 2009 Date: 25.2.2010 Between: M/s. S.S. Organics Ltd. Petitioner. And RegionalP.F. Commissioner-II and Authority under Section 7A of EPF Act, 1952, Hyderabad and another. .. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No. 4399 of 2010 Order: The petitioner is an industrial unit and it is covered by the provisions of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short ‘the Act’). On 29.5.2009, the 1st respondent passed an order directing that the petitioner is liable to pay a sum of Rs. 16,90,066/- towards balance of Employees Provident Fund dues to its employees. This was on the basis that the petitioner did not produce the relevant records and the information available with them was taken into account. The petitioner submitted a representation dated 2.7.2009 stating that the records were not made available to the respondents at the relevant point of time since they were with the Company Law Board and that since they are now available, the matter may be examined with reference to them. The 1st respondent passed an order dated 15.9.2009 refusing to reconsider the matter on the ground that it does not fall within the scope of 7A(4) of the Act. This was followed by an order of attachment dated 5.1.2010 against the petitioner. The said proceedings are under challenge. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent. Even from a perusal of the order dated 29.5.2009, it is evident that the representative of the petitioner expressed his inability to place the relevant records before it on the ground that they are with the Company Law Board. Therefore, the order is ex-parte in nature, though the representative was physically present. Section 7A(4) provides for a remedy in matters of this nature. Once the petitioner has produced the relevant material before the 1st respondent, the same ought to have been examined so that the actual issues addressed. The respondent cannot refuse to exercise the jurisdiction on technical grounds. Hence, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The 1st respondent is directed to peruse the records that may be submitted by the petitioner within 15 days from today and pass appropriate orders on merits. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY,J DATE: 25.2.2010 pnb