IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT PETITION No.7011 of 2010 BETWEEN Chaitanyta Godavari Grameena Bank. ... PETITIONER AND The Employees Provident Fund Commissioner, East Godavari District and another. ...RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioner: MR. M. PITCHAIAH Counsel for the Respondents: MR. R.N. REDDY The Court made the following order: ORDER: Petitioner – bank was issued a demand by the original Provident Fund Commissioner dated 08.05.2009 for recovery of Rs.78,320/- on the ground that the petitioner – bank has not credited the provident fund contributions with respect to one of the employee viz. Sri Kanuri Trivikram Rao, S/o. Late Narayana Rao, who is said to be working with the petitioner – bank. An order by the second respondent dated 25.02.2010 determining the said amount of Rs.78,320/- as contributions due from the petitioner – bank was also passed requiring the petitioner to make good the payment. Both the said proceedings are questioned in this writ petition by the petitioner primarily on the ground that no notice was issued to the petitioner nor the petitioner was heard before determination of the said amount. 2. So far as the employee is concerned, it is stated that he was a casual labour as Sweeper – cum – Messenger for two months initially and later engaged for a month, when he approached this Court for regularization, which was pending adjudication. 3. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit stating that on the basis of the report of the Area Enforcement Officer, the said quantification and demand was made and the petitioner – bank was called upon to pay the amounts under three different letters but there was no response and in those circumstances, the impugned demand is sought to be justified. 4. The fact, however, remains that adjudication under Section 7-A of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 against the petitioner – bank with respect to one of its alleged employees, has been made but the same is not preceded by any specific notice and enquiry as contemplated under Section 7-A of the Act. In view of that the principles of natural justice also are violated. In the circumstances, the impugned orders are set aside and the matter is remitted to the second respondent, who shall furnish opportunity by written notice to the petitioner – bank and if any replies are filed by the petitioner – bank, appropriate orders be passed after considering the same. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J November 24, 2011 DSK