1 wp 6793.11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6793 OF 2011 M/s. Dhoot Transmission Pvt. Ltd., 15 KM Stone, Gut No. 100, Farola, Paithan Road, Aurangabad 431137 Through General Manager .. Petitioner Versus The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Nagpur, through Standing Counsel of Union of India in the High Court of Judicature of Bombay at Aurangabad. .. Respondent Shri T. K. Prabhakaran, Advocate for the Petitioner. Shri K. B. Choudhari, Standing Counsel for the Respondent. CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE : 04TH OCTOBER, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : . Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. With the consent of parties taken up for final hearing. 2 wp 6793.11 2. The only grievance made in the present petition is to the extent of the adjudication made by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner in respect of the various allowances paid to the employees as detailed in para 8 (D) of the impugned order and specified in the last part of the order, whereby liability is fastened on the petitioner as detailed in the chart of the order in respect of various allowances. Shri Prabhakaran, the learned counsel contends that the show cause notice which was issued did not contemplate an enquiry in respect of the liability of the petitioner to pay the provident fund in respect of various allowances paid to the employee and the same came as surprise to the petitioner, only after the petitioner received the copy of the order, no enquiry was conducted. Even the petitioner was not made know the source of the information and the basis on which the said figures were arrived at and the liability imposed. The same was in violation of principles of natural justice. The respondent could not have conducted the enquiry in respect of those items for which no show cause notice was issued. 3. Shri Choudhari, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner has an alternate efficacious remedy by way of filing an appeal. Even notices were issued to the 3 wp 6793.11 petitioner when an enquiry U/Sec. 7-A is initiated. The officers can make an enquiry in respect of other items also. In the present case inspection has been made and thereafter the said conclusion has been arrived. Even notice was issued to the petitioner and even the petitioner has chosen not to reply the objections. 4. It is not disputed that the show cause notice did not state about the enquiry to be conducted in respect of various allowances, more particularly as laid down in para 8 (D) of the impugned order. The petitioner cannot be taken by surprise. If an application is to be made against the petitioner, the petitioner is required to be made known the basis on which the respondent has arrived at conclusion so as to offer an opportunity to the petitioner to defend the same. In the present case no such procedure is followed. 5. In the light of the above, the impugned order to the extent of para 8 (D) is quashed and set aside. The respondent shall after giving notice to the petitioner with all other information and the material may initiate the proceeding afresh as per law. 4 wp 6793.11 6. Rule is accordingly made absolute in above terms, however, with no order as to costs. 7. Shri Prabhakaran, the learned counsel states that the petitioner may be allowed to withdraw the amount deposited earlier. The petitioner is at liberty to move an application in the said writ petition in which the said amount was deposited. Sd/- [ S. V. GANGAPURWALA, J. ] bsb/Oct. 11