Non-compliance with mandatory procedure and lack of factual foundation vitiates proceedings under Section 8-F (3) of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952.

( 1 ) BY filing this writ, the petitioner has challenged the order dated November 23, 2000 (Annexure P4) and other consequential orders such as order dated December 1, 2000 (Annexure P5) and order dated April 11, 2001 [annexure P9 (c)]. All these orders which are impugned in this writ are passed by Recovery officer under Section 8-F (3) of Employees' provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions act, 1952. In order to appreciate the issue involved in the writ, few facts need mention.

( 2 ) RESPONDENT No. 3 is a limited company engaged in manufacture of Cloth business. It is a factory as defined under Section 2 (g) of employees' Provident Funds And Miscellaneous act, 1952 (for brevity hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and hence, subjected to payment of contribution payable in respect of a Member (employee) under a Scheme framed under the act as per the provisions of the Act at all relevant times.

( 3 ) IT appears that respondent No. 3 failed to contribute the contribution payable under the act and thus, became a defaulter for different periods such as 3/84 to 5/90, 2/91 to 2/94, 2/93 to 11/94, 12/94 to 1/95, totalling an amount of rs. 2,63,933/ -. Despite notice of demand sent to respondent No. 3 from time to time by the recovery officer under the Act, the respondent no. 3 did not pay the dues and continued to remain a defaulter.

( 4 ) IT further appears that Recovery Officer came to know that respondent No. 3 has to recover some money from the petitioner. In other words, the Recovery Officer came in possession of certain information by which, he could gather that petitioner has to pay some amount to the respondent No. 3. It is on this basis, the Recovery Officer invoking his powers under Section 8-F of the Act issued an order dated November 23, 2000 (Annexure P4) against the petitioner. In this order, described as Prohibitory order, it was mentioned that petitioner who is required to pay rent to the respondent No. 3 and which is now due from december, 2000 onwards, the same shall not be paid to any person except to recovery officer. This was followed by one letter dated december 1, 2000 (Annexure P5) from the recovery Officer to petitioner saying that respondent No. 3 has informed the Recovery officer by their letter dated November 22, 2000 that monthly rent of Rs. 30,000/ is receivable by the respondent No. 3 from the petitioner for one accommodation and hence, on the strength of the said letter, the petitioner was asked to remit the entire monthly rent to recovery Officer for realization of dues on the respondent No. 3 amounting to Rs. 2,63,933. 00, rs. 62,039/-and Rs. 8,277. 00together with 5% cost till they are fully adjusted. This was then followed by summonsdated March 30, 2001 (Annexure P7) from the office of Recovery officer to the petitioner asking them to attend the office of Recovery Officer on April 11, 2001. The petitioner was requested to file any documents in support of their case. The petitioner on receipt, by their letter dated April 11, 2001 (Annexure P8) sought certain clarification such as the details of claim, its nature, its basis etc. to enable them to file some reply if necessary and defend the proceedings. It appears that Recovery Officer did not reply to petitioner's aforesaid letter but took up the case on April 11, 2001 and observed that since petitioner has not appeared before him pursuant to summons issued, and hence, the impugned order is being passed. It was then held that the representative of respondent No. 3 has appeared and has stated that petitioner has to pay Rs. 30,000. 00 monthly rent to respondent no. 3 and in its support has filed one award. It is on this basis the Recovery Officer directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 90,000. 00 towards the demand in question raised on the respondent No. 3. It is against these orders the petitioner has filed this writ.

( 5 ) THE respondents have defended the impugned orders.

( 6 ) HEARD Shri Anand Pathak, learned counsel for pe