The central legal point established in the judgment is the necessity of affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing as a necessary concomitant of the principles of natural justice, even if absent in the statute.

1. The petitioner is aggrieved with Ext.P5 order passed in an application filed under Section 7B of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 [for brevity, the EPF & MP Act]. The petitioner was issued with a notice by Ext.P1 under Section 7A of the EPF & MP Act. An order was passed at Ext.P3 assessing the contributions and determining the wages evaded from the ambit of the contribution payable under the Act. A review was filed as per Ext.P4, which was rejected by Ext.P5. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order mainly on two grounds; one, an opportunity of hearing having not been granted and none of the objections having been considered. There is total non application of mind, since Ext.P5 indicates no reasons having been stated for rejection of the order, is the argument.

2. The petitioner relies on three decisions; St.Barnabas Hospital v. The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner & Others [WP(C) No.2954 of 2004] by the High Court of Jharkhand, Deccan Education Society v. Union of India & Others [WP(C) No.202675 of 2015] by the High Court of Karnataka and Ashmit Motors Private Limited v. The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Sub Regional Office, Satpur, Nashik [WP(C) No.9676 of 2016] by the High Court of Bombay [Aurangabad Bench].

3. The learned Standing Counsel for the EPFO points out Section 7B(3), wherein there is no stipulation for granting oral hearing. It is stated that Section 7B(4) specifically speaks of a notice and hearing of any aggrieved party, if the review petition is being allowed and in the context of rejection, what is contemplated is only consideration of the grounds stated in the application for review.

4. The learned counsel while reiterating the contention on violation of principles of natural justice, specifically audi alteram partem, asserts that there is also no consideration of the grounds raised by the petitioner in the impugned order. The petitioner has specifically contended that the wages and dues determined as evaded were incentives and HRA granted to the employees, which even by the statutory prescription is not coming withing the ambit of the contributions prescribed under the Act. It is also submitted that the petitioner had produced two salary bills showing such incentives and HRA and also undertaken to produce the entire salary bills of the employees for the period before the authority at the time of hearing.

5. The decisions cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner are with respect to the absence of a hearing under Section 7B(3). Deccan Education Society does not help the petitioner since the order under Section 7B was set aside since it was not passed by the officer who passed the order under Section 7A. Ashmit Motors Private Limited is clearly on point. The Court compared the language of Order XLVII of the Civil Procedure Code and that of Section 7B, and found it to be identical; without an express provision for hearing, if there is a rejection of the review made. A review under the CPC necessarily contemplates the hearing of the review petitioner if the same is rejected and if it is to be allowed it can only be with notice to and hearing of the opposite party; is the settled position, was the finding. St.Barnabas Hospital was also in similar circumstances when the review was rejected without notice and hearing of the review petitioner. The Court found that the principles of natural justice, fair adjudication and equity warrant a reasonable opportunity of hearing before an adverse order is passed. This Court is inclined to agree with the judgments of the various High Courts as placed before this Court, in which it has been held that affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing is a necessary concomitant of the principles of natural justice, which even if absent in the statute, shall be necessarily afforded. A specific requirement for notice on and hearing of, the opposite party, before a review is allowed is only as an abundant cautio