The court emphasized that review applications under the Act must afford an opportunity for hearing to the aggrieved party, reinforcing principles of natural justice.

JUDGMENT

Dinesh Pathak, J.

Heard Shri. S. S. Nigam, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri. Karshit Nigam, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri. Jagdish Pathak, learned counsel for all the respondents and perused the record on board.

2. The petitioner has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the undated order passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-I, Regional Office, Varanasi (respondent no.3) under Section 7-B of the Employees' Provident Fund and Misc. Provisions Act, 1952 (in brevity 'Act, 1952') whereby review petition filed on behalf of the petitioner against the order dated 26.12.2023 passed under Section 7-A of the Act, 1952 has been rejected.

3. Facts culled out from the record are that the proceeding under Section 7-A of the Act, 1952 has been initiated against the establishment (present petitioner) to determine the quantum of dues payable by it qua contractual employees/home workers for the period since August, 2008 to January, 2019. Accordingly, summon under Section 7-A of the Act, 1952 was issued to the establishment by Reference dated 15.10.2019 to appear before the authorized officer along with the supporting documents. Aforesaid proceeding was decided on the basis of the report submitted by Sumit Kumar Gupta, A.E.O., vide order dated 26.12.2023 passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II, Varanasi (respondent no.2). Having been aggrieved with the order dated 26.12.2023, the petitioner has preferred review petition dated 22.02.2024 under Section 7-B of the Act, 1952. Said review petition was finally rejected by respondent no.3 without mentioning the date of order (Annexure-1), which is under challenge before this Court.

4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that respondent no.3 has inherent lack of jurisdiction to pass the order impugned under Section 7-B of the Act, 1952 inasmuch as, vide order dated 09.03.2024 (Annexure-5), respondent no.3 was transferred from Regional Office, Varanasi to Head Office with immediate effect and the controlling authority was directed to relieve the transferred employee within three days, however, order has been passed in hasty manner without putting date on the order before relieving the office. It is further submitted that the order under challenge has been passed sans opportunity of hearing accorded to the petitioner which in violation of principles of natural justice and fair play. It is submitted as well that the order dated 26.12.2003 has been passed under Section 7-A of the Act, 1952 on the basis of report submitted by Sumit Kumar Gupta, A.E.O., however, he has never visited on the spot (office of the establishment and other relevant places) to examine the quantum of dues for the period from August, 2008 to January, 2019. Learned Senior Counsel has laid emphasis on the reply dated 14.07.2023 submitted by the Provident Fund Organization under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (Page No.108 of the writ petition) to demonstrate that Sumit Kumar Gupta, A.E.O., has never visited the offices of the Contractor to assess the dues, if any. It is lastly submitted that the order impugned, being illegal and unwarranted under the law, is liable to be quashed.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the Provident Fund Organization has contended that under Section 7-B of the Act, 1952, there is no requirement of according opportunity of hearing to the review petitioner. It is further contended that the order impugned under Section 7-B of the Act, 1952 was passed on 13.03.2024 and in the afternoon of the same day, respondent no.3 was relieved from Regional Office to join Head Office. It is next contended that though the transfer order was passed on 09.03.2024, three days' time was granted to relieve from office, after excluding two holidays i.e. Saturday and Sunday (09.03.2024 and 10.03.2024) respectively, thus, the transfer order came into effect on 11.03.2024 and he has been re