1 wp-7101-09 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION W.P. NO. 7101 OF 2009 M/s. Ashok Electrical Works ..Petitioner Vs. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Kolhapur ..Respondent .... Mr.M.S.Topkar counsel for Petitioner Mr.Suresh Kumar counsel for Respondent. .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : AUGUST 21, 2009 P.C.: 1. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner-factory and the learned counsel for the Respondent-Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that on 19th May, 2009 the Inspector from the office of Respondent visited the establishment of petitioner and demanded certain records of one Mr.Balasaheb Kusale 2 wp-7101-09 who was engaged as wireman by the petitioner. On 3rd June, 2009 Inspector from the office of Respondent again visited petitioner ’s office at 11 a.m. and on the same day collected all the documents and on the same date, petitioner received notice from respondent at his residence informing that the petitioner should attend the hearing before respondent on 4th June, 2009 at 11 a.m. The petitioner attended the hearing and submitted the letter stating that as record has been seized by the Inspector and as the notice of hearing was received by him earlier night at 9.30 p.m. he could not prepare reply in such short period and he prayed for time. The application for adjournment came to be rejected and order came to be passed that the petitioner to pay Rs.51,357/- to Mr.Kusale. Thereafter Review Application came to be preferred which also came to be rejected. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that figure of Rs. 51,357/- has not been properly computed and while computing the same, other factors which could not have been included, have been considered. Prima facie, it does appear that not just basic wages as contemplated under Section 6 of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 but some other allowances have been taken into consideration while computing the said amount of Rs. 51,357/-. Had the petitioner been given a reasonable opportunity to represent his case, he would have been in a position to point out the 3 wp-7101-09 correct facts. 4. In this view of the matter, the orders dated 4th June, 2009 and 23rd July, 2009 passed by the Respondent, are set aside. The Respondent shall hear the Petitioner afresh and dispose of the matter in accordance with law. 5. Parties shall appear before the Respondent on 16th September, 2009 at 3.00 p.m. 6. Petition is disposed of. [ SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.]