IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No. 6456 of 2009 Between: Sunita Textile Mills (P) Ltd., 21-1-646, Rikab Gunj, High Court Road, Hyderabad 500 002, represented by its Managing Director. ..... PETITIONER AND The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (Compliance), Regional Office, Hyderabad, Barkatpura, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue an order, direction or writ more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in issuing the proceeding AP 43198/RO/HYD/ENF/C-I/T- 3/2009, dt. -03-2009, as wholly illegal, arbitrary and unjust and consequently set aside the same and remand the matter to the Respondent to pass appropriate orders basing upon the documents and explanation given by the Petitioner and pass. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI G.RAVI MOHAN Counsel for the Respondent: SRI R.N. REDDY (SC FOR EMPLOY'S PF ORG.) The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.6456 of 2009 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in passing the order in AP/43198/RO/HYD/ENF/C-I/T-3/2009, dated -.03.2009, as arbitrary and illegal, and consequently set aside the same and remand the matter to the respondent to pass appropriate orders basing upon the documents and explanation given by the petitioner. It appears, the petitioner is a Textile Mill and it is an establishment covered under the provisions of the Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short ‘the Act’). While so, on an anonymous complaint dated 15.01.2003 made to the respondent’s Organization, an inspection was conducted and it was found that the employer of the petitioner Textile Mill has failed to comply with the provisions of the Act and Schemes framed there under inasmuch as the contributions, administrative charges etc. have not been remitted for the period from 09/1992 onwards in respect of all the eligible employees, and thereby, an inquiry under Section 7A of the Act has been initiated against the petitioner, by issuing notice to the petitioner and, ultimately, basing on the documents produced by the petitioner and also the report furnished by the Inspection Officers, the respondent passed an order, in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 7A & 7Q of the Act, on 16.12.2008 determining a sum of Rs.25,74,954/- payable by the employer of the petitioner for the period from 1992-93 to 2005-06 and also directing the employer to pay the said amount duly reducing the amounts which already paid, if any, out of the said assessed amount. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed a review petition under Section 7(B) of the Act, and the Reviewing Authority, by the impugned order, rejected the review petition for the reasons mentioned therein. Questioning the same, this writ petition is filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the xerox copies of the relevant records and also the detailed explanation of the petitioner establishment were being filed along with the review application before the Reviewing Authority, the Reviewing Authority has not looked into the same, and it simply rejected the review petition without furnishing any reasons. Sri R.N.Reddy, learned Standing counsel appearing for the respondent, strenuously contended that since no new material to substantiate the case of the petitioner was placed before the Reviewing Authority, the Reviewing Authority has rightly rejected the review petition with an observation that the grounds for review furnished in the review application are not acceptable as the employer never appeared in person to represent the case during 7-A inquiry. The Reviewing Authority also observed that the review petition is not preferred in the prescribed format and that the inquiry was also concluded only on the basis of records of the establishment and on the basis of calculation and the records relied on were clearly indicated/informed to the petitioner. The close examination of the impugned order itself would indicate that instead of furnishing reasons for rejecting the review petition, the Reviewing Authority has gone into the conduct of the petitioner at the time of 7A inquiry. The Reviewing Authority is supposed to examine the review petition on the basis of the documentary and oral evidence, if any, adduced by the petitioner and pass appropriate orders, but it simply rejected the review petition in a pedantic manner. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the impugned order is passed in gross violation of principles of natural justice and on that ground alone, it is liable to be set aside. In view of the above, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Reviewing Authority under Section 7(B) of the Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. The Reviewing Authority shall reconsider the matter, after permitting the petitioner to adduce the oral and documentary evidence, if any, and after hearing the petitioner in-person, and pass appropriate orders as per law. Till such time, status quo obtaining as on today shall be maintained. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. No costs. _____________ C.V.RAMULU,J 26.03.2009 v v