IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN FRIDAY, THE 16TH OCTOBER 2009 / 24TH ASWINA 1931 WP(C).No. 29251 of 2009(B) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- ARISTO CASHEWS, VILAKUDY P.O., KUNNIOODU, KOLLAM-691 508, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR, K.RAJAN. BY ADV. SRI.A.V.XAVIER SRI.K.JOLLY JOHN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE ASST.PVOVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, SUB.REGIONAL OFFICE, OLD MUNICIPLAL OFFICE BUILDING, KOLLAM- 691 001. 2. THE RECOVERY OFFICER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, SUB. REGIONAL OFFICE, OLD MUNICIPAL OFFICE BUILDING, KOLLAM-691 001. ADV.PIRAPPANCODE.V.S.SUDHEER, SC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P(C).No.29251 of 2009 ================== Dated this the 16th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is an establishment covered under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act (“the Act”). Ext.P6 order under Section 7A of the Act has been passed computing the amounts allegedly due from the petitioner towards contributions under the Act. The petitioner has serious dispute regarding such computation, since, according to the petitioner, during the period in question the establishment was not functioning at all and the petitioner had not paid any wages to the employees of the establishment. The petitioner also claims to have produced adequate proof in support of the same. But that was not considered and based on an alleged report of the enforcement officer, Ext.P6 order was passed. The petitioner filed an application under Section 7B of the Act, which was rejected by Ext.P13 again relying on another report of the enforcement officer. The petitioner submits that the petitioner has not been made aware of such a report and, therefore, without supplying a copy of the report of the enforcement officer, the 1st respondent could not have relied on that report to dismiss the application under Section 7B. He would submit that that amounts to violation of principles of natural justice. 2. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Provident Fund Organization would submit that copy of the report was not given to the petitioner only because the petitioner has not asked for the same. 2 3. I am of opinion that when the authority under the Act proposes to rely upon any document whatsoever against the petitioner, the petitioner should have been put on notice regarding the same and supplied with a copy of the same. The contention of the Standing Counsel for the Provident Fund Organization that the petitioner did not ask for a copy of the same does not appeal to me. The petitioner could not have asked for a report, existence of which he is not aware of. Therefore, clearly reliance on the report of the enforcement officer by the 1st respondent is clearly in violation of the principles of natural justice. For that reason alone Ext.P13 is liable to be quashed. I do so. The 1st respondent is directed to reconsider the Section 7B application filed by the petitioner in accordance with law after supplying a copy of the report of the enforcement officer or any other document which the 1st respondent intends to rely on against the petitioner and considering the contentions of the same in regard to the same. The 1st respondent shall also consider why the evidence produced by the petitioner cannot be relied upon. Coercive proceedings for recovery of the amount covered by Ext.P6 shall be kept in abeyance until fresh orders are passed under Section 7B as directed above. The writ petition is disposed of as above. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge 3