The Commissioner must conduct an independent inquiry under Section 7A of the Act, ensuring compliance with natural justice principles before determining amounts due from employers.

JUDGMENT

Mr. Sanjay Vashisth, J. (Oral)

By way of present writ petition, petitioner - Central Board of Trustees, Employees Provident Fund Organization through Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (in short, 'Ld. APFC'), Jalandhar City, has challenged the sustainability of order dated 12.05.2014 (Annexure P-3), passed by the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (in short, 'learned Appellate Tribunal'), whereby, appeal filed by the respondent - M/s Hari Darshan Singh, BKO (Brick Kiln Owner), has been allowed.

2. In the aforesaid appeal, order dated 03.09.2008 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Ld. APFC, under Section 7A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for brevity, 'the Act of 1952'), was assailed by the respondent.

3. As per the order dated 03.09.2008 (P-1), respondent - Establishment/Employer was ordered to deposit the total amount of Rs. 8,44,331/- within a period of 15 days of the receipt of the order, and then to submit the proof of deposit, failing which, same would be recovered as per the provisions of Section 8B to 8G of the Act of 1952. As per the order passed by the Ld. APFC, under Section 7A of the Act of 1952, no objection to the assessment done by Enforcement Officer/Inspector was filed by the respondent. Rather, said assessment was made ex-party on the basis of District Food Controller's report etc.

4. In the appeal, learned Appellate Tribunal, examined the record and found that merely on the basis of the report of the Enforcement Officer/ Inspector, the Commissioner determined the amount due from the establishment/employer, whereas, as per Section 7A of the Act of 1952, an inquiry is required to be conducted by the Commissioner himself. Thus, order dated 03.09.2008 was set aside for want of compliance of Section 7A of the Act of 1952, by observing as under:-

"3. The appellant did not produce all documents before the Commissioner. The Commissioner ultimately called for a report from the Provident Fund Inspector. The Inspector visited the appellant establishment and submitted a report that the appellant's establishment had defaulted in remitting the PF dues. On the basis of this report the Commissioner determined the amount due from the appellant employer. The respondent authority has, however, kindly accepted the report submitted by the Enforcement Officer without any examination.

4. Section 7A of the Act rejoins that it is the Commissioner who would have to make the enquiry. The determination of outstanding PF dues is to be made by him and not by the inspector. Therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable on this ground. The Ld. Advocate for the appellant also contended that the report of the Provident Fund Inspector had not been supplied to the appellant before being taken into consideration. The validity of the impugned has also been assailed on this ground. The impugned order, is therefore, legal not sustainable.

5. Accordingly, the impugned order is not sustainable and is set aside. The appellant is allowed. Copy of the order be sent to both the parties. File be consigned to the record."

5. In the writ petition filed before this Court, counsel for the petitioner - Organization, argues that provisions of Section 7A of the Act of 1952, have been duly complied with. Numerous opportunities were granted to the respondent to represent its case and matter was heard on 29/08/2006, 05/09/2006, 26/09/2006, 12/10/2006, 8/11/2006, 29/11/2006, 13/12/2006, 03/01/2007, 24/01/2007, 21/02/2007, 21/03/2007, 25/04/2007, 30/05/2007, 11/07/2007, 31/07/2007, 19/09/2007, 17/10/2007, 26/12/2007, 23/01/2008, 05/03/2008, 16/04/2008, 28/05/2008, 02/07/2008, 23/07/2008 and 13/08/2008. However, neither anybody appeared on behalf of the organization, nor any representation was received from its side on any date, despite repeated letters and summons. Thus, there being no objection/representation, no deep inquiry was required to be conducted at the first instance by the Commissioner, and t