Authorities must adhere to principles of natural justice and provide opportunities for hearing in quasi-judicial proceedings, especially in review applications.

JUDGMENT :

Ajay Mohan Goel, J.

By way of this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the order passed by the Reviewing Authority dated 31.01.2023, in terms whereof the review petition preferred by the petitioner against the order passed by the Authority dated 30.07.2022, stands rejected.

2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has assailed the order on two grounds. He submitted that the impugned order is not sustainable for the reason that the order dated 30.07.2022 was passed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, whereas the review order is passed by different authority, i.e. the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II. Learned Counsel has further argued that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law for the reason it has been issued without hearing the petitioner.

3. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents has submitted that there is no merit in the present petition for the reason that after the transfer of Shri Gulshan Ram, Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, on 16.08.2022, the work of office of the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner was being looked after by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II, and further the scheme of Section 7(B) of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘ the Act’ for short), does not envisages any provision of grant of hearing to a review petitioner, in case, the Authority is not inclined to accept the review.

4. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and also carefully gone through the orders as well as the statutory provisions of the Act.

5. A perusal of the documents demonstrates that the initial order which was passed by the Authority under Section 7-A of the Act, dated 30.07.2022, was passed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner. However, in review, the order has been passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II. In light of the fact that learned Counsel for the petitioner could not prove to the contrary that indeed after the transfer of the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, the work of this post was being looked after by Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II, this Court is of the considered view that the contention of the petitioner that the order is bad, as not having been passed by the authority which has passed the original order, is not sustainable in the eyes of law. As the earlier order was passed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner and the subsequent order was also passed by an officer who was manning the post of Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner alongwith the post of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II, it cannot be said that the officer was not having any authority in law or jurisdiction to decide the review petition. Incidentally, it is borne out from the record that the review was also preferred before the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II only by the petitioner.

6. As far as the issue of the petitioner not being heard before the passing of the impugned order is concerned, Section 7-B of the Act deals with the review of orders passed under Section 7A of the Act, in terms whereof where it appears to the officer receiving an application for review that there is no sufficient ground for a review, he shall reject the application. Sub section (4) of Section 7(B) further provides that where the officer is of opinion that the application for review should be granted, he shall grant the same provided that (a) no such application shall be granted without previous notice to all the parties before him to enable them to appear and be heard in support of the order in respect of which a review is applied for, and (b) no such application shall be granted on the ground of discovery of new matter or evidence which the applicant alleges was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him when the order was made, without proof of such allegation.

7. As per learned Counsel for the respondents,