The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a reasoned order and the determination of the valid order for appeal, emphasizing the need for clarity and adherence to procedural requirements.

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.

1. The adage : A stitch in time saves nine could be the apt preamble to the present decision. Only if somebody had applied himself with a little care at the relevant time and put the stitch on time we would not have been called upon to put nine stitches.

2. The appellant company was registered with the Provident Fund Commissioner and used to deposit such amounts as were required to be deposited with the respondent concerning provident fund of its employees. As of the year 2001 a sum of Rs. 5.71 crores became due and payable by the appellant to the respondent. The details being as under:-

S.No.	Period	Amount	RRC No.	Date
1.	8/94 to 3/96	18366785	1008	16/5/97
2.	6/96 to 11/97	4562018	1125	6.4.2000
3.	12/97 to 4/98	4054282	-	-
4.	5/98 to 9/98	3456065	1126	6.4.2000
5.	10/98 to 1/99	3217870	1160	27.7.2000
6.	2/99 to 10/99	8359042	1164	13.9.2000
7.	11/99 to 6/2000	8827170	1165	9.1.2001
8.	11/2000 to 3/2001	3453956	1185	13.8.2001
9.	-	853613	72A	25.11.85
10.	6/83 to 4/84	46968	72B	30.7.87
11.	1/84 to 88-89	1988251	720	26.2.9
	Total	5.71 crores

      3. The demand as per serial No. 1 to serial No. 7 was towards provident fund liable to be deposited by the appellant and the demand at serial No. 8 to serial No. 11 was for damages levied under Section 14B of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952.

4. It appears that the demands were created by ex-parte orders. The reason was that the appellant was in financial distress. Since the year 1994 proceedings pertaining to a scheme of rehabilitation were pending before the Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction and since it was not possible to revive the appellant winding up proceedings have commenced.

5. When the demand in sum of Rs. 5.71 crores was raised the ex-management of the appellant approached the learned Company Judge of this Court praying that the respondent be directed to review the ex-parte assessment orders. On February 23, 2005 the learned Company Judge noted that under the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 a power of review was vested in the respondent and hence the application filed by the ex-management of the appellant was disposed of observing that a review could be sought of the ex-parte assessment orders.

6. As a matter of fact, proceedings under Section 7A of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 were initiated by the respondent from time to time noting that deposit of contributions due had not been made from August, 1994 to March, 2001 and the demand in sum of Rs. 5.71 crores was not created pursuant to a singular order, much less dated May 31, 2001. On said date the demand was raised.

7. The appellant, through its ex-management, thereupon filed an application dated March 13, 2005 seeking review, and in the application it did not mention the date of the order or orders if any passed under Section 7A of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. Making a reference to an order passed by the learned Company Judge on February 23, 2005 it was prayed that all assessment orders passed under Section 7A resulting in a demand in sum of Rs. 5.71 crores be reviewed.

8. There being a threat of enforcement of the demand in sum of Rs. 5.71 crores, on March 24, 2005 i.e. immediately after filing the application referred to above in paragraph 7, the appellant filed W.P. (C) No. 5389-92/2005 in this Court in which it was pleaded that the respondent be restrained from taking any coercive steps till appellant’s application dated March 13, 2005 was decided. The writ petition was disposed of on April 04, 2005 noting that application seeking review of the ex-parte assessment