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 Re