1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 24.04.2018 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II, Employees’ Provident Fund Organization (Ministry of Labour & Employment, Government of India), Regional Office, Ranchi, Jharkhand (respondent No.2) under Section 7C of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (in short ‘the Act, 1952’) directing the petitioner to pay the PF liability within a period of 15 days on the ground that the overtime allowance was not considered earlier while determining the same.

2. The factual background of the case, as stated in the writ petition, is that a proceeding was initiated under Section 7A of the Act, 1952 by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Regional Office, Ranchi (respondent No.3) and vide order dated 28.05.2009, the petitioner-organization was directed to deposit a sum of Rs.3118/- over and above an amount of Rs.63,73,319/- deposited by the petitioner as dues and further Rs.64,382/- as interest under Section 7Q of the Act, 1952. The petitioner deposited Rs.67,500/- on 10.07.2009 through demand draft. Subsequently, a vigilance inquiry was held and in pursuance of submission of the report, a notice dated 04.07.2011 under Section 7C(a) of the Act, 1952 was issued by the respondent No.2 to the petitioner-firm to appear on 02.08.2011 and adduce evidence/statement as well as to produce all relevant records for conducting an enquiry and determination of the escaped amount. The petitioner appeared on 02.08.2011 and produced all the documents, however, on 22.11.2017, a commission was ordered to be constituted to verify the documents and to submit a detailed report. The said commission visited the petitioner-firm on 19.12.2017 and submitted its report on 21.02.2018 observing that overtime allowances have not been added while making computation of wages which needs to be added, moreover, the payment shown to have been made to several employees are less than the minimum wages. In the meantime, on 31.01.2018, the petitioner-firm requested for summoning 3 officers of the department for cross-examination who were engaged in preparation of the vigilance report, which was denied by the respondent No.2. However, the finding was given by the respondent No.2 on the basis of the said vigilance report itself.

3. The petitioner has contended that though it repeatedly requested the respondent No.2 for providing all necessary documents and to provide sufficient opportunity of hearing to explain the allegation, yet the same was not considered and vide the impugned order dated 24.04.2018, the respondent No.2 held as under:-

“a. Overtime allowances paid to the employees are more than the wages on which PF contribution has been deducted from 07/07 to 03/08.

b. Establishment has not paid wages to the employees as per the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 and has split up wages to reduce the quantum of benefit to the employees.

c. I do not find any rationality on the report dt. 21.02.2018 as Over time Allowances as per Law and as per Factory Act, 1948 was not considered by the Enforcement Officers.

d. Assistant Director (Vigilance), East Zone, Kolkata had stated that the then assessing officer had under assessed a sum of Rs.46,48,877/-.

e. The report of Assistant Director (Vigilance), East Zone, Kolkata is more reasonable to arrive at a conclusion.”

Thereafter, the petitioner-firm was directed to deposit a sum of Rs.46,48,877/- within a period of 15 days, failing which the same would be recovered as per the provisions of Sections 8B to 8G of the Act, 1952.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the jurisdiction of the respondent No.2 in passing the impugned order dated 24.04.2018 under Section 7C of the Act, 1952 on the ground that the same is in the form of re-assessment/review, which can only be undertaken by the same authority who has passed the order under Section 7A of the Act, 1952. It is furthe