JUDGMENT

A.S. Chandurkar, J. - Rule. Heard finally with consent of learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petitioners are aggrieved by the order passed by the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, thereby allowing the appeal that was filed by the respondent no.1 herein and setting aside the order dated 30th January, 2013 passed by the Asstt. Provident Fund Commissioner.

3. According to the petitioners, the establishment of the respondent no.1 is covered under the provisions of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 [for short, "the said Act"] from 31st July, 1987. On account of failure on the part of respondent no.1 in remitting dues towards provident fund from October, 1997, an enquiry under provisions of Section 7-A of the said Act came to be initiated. In those proceedings, the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner on 28th January, 2013 assessed the amounts due from the respondent no.1 at Rs. 26,34,708-00/-. The respondent no.1 being aggrieved filed an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. By the impugned order, the said appeal has been allowed and the order dated 30th January, 2013 has been set aside.

4. Shri H. N. Verma, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that despite grant of sufficient opportunity to the respondent no.1 to provide relevant records, the same was not done. On the basis of material available on record, the Asstt. Provident Fund Commissioner had assessed the dues payable by the respondent no.1. The Tribunal on an incorrect premise held that as there was no identification of the employees, the order passed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner was illegal. It was submitted that the said order could hardly be said to be a non-speaking order in view of the fact that the entire material along with balance-sheets of the respondent no.1 had been taken into consideration while determining the dues payable. If despite opportunity, the respondent no.1 did not participate in the proceedings and produce relevant material, the Corporation could not be blamed in that regard. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel placed reliance on the decisions in [1] Employees State Insurance Corporation Vs. M/s. Harrison Malayalam Pvt. Ltd. , (1993) AIR SC 2655, [2] Regional Director, E.S.I. Corporation Vs. Kerala State Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. & others , (1995) Supp3 SCC 148, and [3] order of the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 5390 of 2010; decided on 02nd December, 2010 [Anuradha Sugar Mills Ltd. Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner & another] [Coram : B. P. Dharmadhikari, J.]. It was, thus, submitted that the order of the Tribunal was liable to be set aside.

5. Shri A. J. Pathak, learned counsel for the respondent no.1, supported the impugned adjudication. According to him, the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner did not direct the copy of the report of the Enforcement Officer to be supplied to the respondent no.1 and after taking into consideration that report, held against the respondent no.1. No cogent reasons were assigned while assessing the dues of the respondent no.1. Moreover, in absence of any identification of employees who were intended to be benefited, no dues could have been assessed. It was open for the authorities under the said Act to inspect the records of the respondent no.1 while determining the dues. However, the same was not done. The learned counsel placed reliance on the decisions in [1] Himachal Pradesh State Forest Corporation Vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner , (2008) 5 SCC 756 and [2] Sandeep Dwellers Pvt. Ltd., Nagpur Vs. Union of India, through Secretary, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi & others , (2006) 3 CurLR 748.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and I have also perused the record of the proceedings that were directed to be produced for perusal.

7. The Appellate Tribunal has set aside the order passed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner on three counts, namely [1] the re