The main legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between the provisions of Section 7B of the EPF Act, emphasizing the requirement of opportunity of hearing only under Sub-Section (4) for granting the review, and the limitations on the right to appeal against the rejection of review under Section 7B (5).

JUDGMENT

Rajbir Sehrawat, J. (Oral) - The petitioner has filed this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 19.08.2021 (Annexure P-8) received in the month of March, 2022, whereby the review application under Section 7B of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (in short, the EPF Act) has been rejected by respondent No.2 without issuing any notice or affording opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner; along with certain other prayers.

2. The facts as pleaded in the petition are that the petitioner is a registered agency providing security and house keeping services within the territory of Chandigarh. The petitioner had, allegedly, not deposited the EPF contributions as per the provisions contained in the EPF Act. Hence, the respondents-authorities had initiated the proceedings under Section 7A of the EPF Act; for assessing the due amount. During the process the petitioner was granted due opportunity of hearing. After hearing the petitioner an amount of Rs.2,61,18,206/- was assessed by the competent authority. Though the order passed under Section 7A of EPF Act is appealable, however, instead of preferring appeal the petitioner had chosen to invoke review of the assessment order; as provided under Section 7B of the EPF Act. The said review filed by the petitioner has been rejected by the respondents-authority. Hence, the present petition has been filed.

3. Arguing the case, the counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Section 7B of the EPF Act provides a remedy to the petitioner which is 'alternate' to the remedy of appeal. Hence, the petitioner had availed the said remedy. However, even before taking final decision upon the review filed by the petitioner, the authority had sent a recovery notice to the petitioner. This shows that the authorities were already bent upon effecting recovery from the petitioner. The subsequent rejection order is only an ante-dated document created by the authorities, without issuance of any notice and without granting any opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. Even the intimation regarding rejection of review was given to the petitioner after a period of 7 months from the stated date of passing of the order The petitioner had brought to the notice of the assessing authority that the original order passed by it was not in accordance with law because; while assessing the liability for provident fund deposit; even the salary of the Directors, which was exempted from calculation under the provisions of the EPF Act; had been included by the assessing authority. Moreover, the liability has been assessed even for the post-retirement period qua certain employees. Despite these facts, having been brought to the notice of the assessing authority, the review has been rejected.

4. Notice of motion.

5. Mr. Rajesh Hooda, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of the respondents and submitted that the petitioner was granted umpteen number of opportunities at the time of passing of the order under section 7A of the Act. The said order has been passed after full appreciation of facts and the entire relevant material. There is no error or mistake in the said order. Therefore, any review of the said order is not called for. The order impugned in the present petition has been passed in exercise of powers under Section 7B (3) of the EPF Act which stipulates that in case the authority finds that no fresh material has been brought to the notice then the said authority shall reject the review. No opportunity of hearing is required for passing of such an order. Even on the aspect of date of passing of the order and supply of the copy of the same to the petitioner establishment, the counsel for the respondents has submitted that the assertion made by the petitioner is factually incorrect. The order in question was passed on 18.08.2021 and a copy of the same was dispa