The main legal point established in the judgment is the violation of principles of natural justice in the decision-making process and the entitlement of the petitioner to a fresh consideration of the matter with the opportunity to present evidence.

JUDGMENT

Suvra Ghosh, J. - The petitioner primarily complains violation of section 7a (2) of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions act, 1952.

2. The petitioner organisation was initially an exempted establishment under paragraph 79 of the Employees' Provident Funds Scheme, 1952 vide order dated 28th February, 1985 and the said exemption was subsequently withdrawn by an order dated 28th December, 2011. During the period of exemption, the provident fund contribution was deposited with the Trust formed by the petitioner in the name and style of Central Tool Room and Training Centre Contributory Provident Fund (hereinafter referred to as BOT) and after withdrawal of exemption, the accumulation in the said fund was transferred to the account of the Employees' Provident Funds Organisation in terms of communication issued by the third respondent to the petitioner on 28th December, 2011. The petitioner company transferred an amount of Rs. 5,48,72,171.90 paise to the respondent organisation on account of the entire past provident fund accumulation along with amount invested in various security deposits and the contribution for the month of February, 2012 was also deposited under a separate challan. a certificate issued by the Chartered accountant on 30th January, 2013 indicated a gap of Rs. 31,86,338.72 paise between the past accumulation and the assets transferred/yet to be transferred as on 30th January, 2013 which was also deposited by the company. Steps were taken to deposit an amount of Rs. 338.72 to the respondent upon reassessment of the dues. Despite there being no intentional delay on the part of the petitioner company in depositing the provident fund accumulation, the third respondent, by an order dated 20th august, 2015, directed the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs. 32,96,273 and 17,68,590 in terms of section 14B and 7Q of the act of 1952. The said order was carried in appeal before the Learned Central Government Industrial Tribunal at Kolkata and the Learned Tribunal, by judgment dated 18th July, 2019, set aside the said order with a direction to the authority concerned to decide the matter afresh in the light of the observations in the body of the judgment.

3. Following registration of the petitioner with the Board of Practical Training, Eastern Region, Ministry of Human Resource Development (hereinafter referred to as BOPT) under the apprentices act, 1961, the petitioner engaged apprentices as per guidelines of the 1961 act who do not come within the definition of 'employee' as defined under section 2(f) of the act of 1952.

4. a squad of the respondent organisation visited the office of the petitioner for enquiry with regard to provident fund contributions from april, 2011 to February, 2012 and forwarded a report to the authority on 10th September, 2021 alleging evasion in respect of 108 persons and claimed a sum of Rs. 59,19,968 and Rs. 35,90,181 though contribution from april, 2011 to 31st December, 2012 was transferred to the respondent organisation from the Trust Fund. a proceeding under section 7a of the act of 1952 was initiated and the petitioner appeared therein. No opportunity was provided to the petitioner for adducing evidence, oral and documentary, in support of his contention and an order was passed on 22nd December, 2021 directing the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs. 95,10,149 within 15 days from the date of receipt of the order.

5. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that no opportunity was granted to the petitioner to either adduce evidence in support of his case, or cross examine any of the officers who prepared the report dated 10th September, 2021. The petitioner has been saddled with huge statutory liability despite transferring over five crores of rupees to the provident fund authority as shall appear from pages 134 to 148 of the writ petition. Learned counsel takes this Court to annexure P-3 to the writ petition which certifies transfer of funds by the petitioner to the p