JUDGMENT :

SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL), J.

1. The writ application has been preferred challenging the two orders dated 21^st January, 2015 passed by the Respondent EPF and the attachment order dated 17.02.2015 issued to the respondent bank for the period 11/1998 to 02/2010 and 03/2010 to 12/2010.

2. The dispute in the present writ application arises out of a proceeding initiated by the respondent no. 2 to levy damages and charge interest under Section 14B and Section 7Q of the said Act in respect of the employees engaged in the Alloy Steels Plant of the petitioner company including contract labourers for the period from 11/1998 to 12/2010.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that the said notice is per se predetermined and had already returned a conclusion as regards the alleged dues without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

4. It is stated that 28^th April, 2014, 24^th June, 2014, 16^th July, 2014 and 8^th August, 2014 were dates fixed for hearing and the petitioner’s representative duly attended the said hearing. It was only on one date i.e. 25^th September, 2014 when the petitioner’s establishment was unable to attend the hearing on the said date and the same was informed to the respondent authority, the respondent authority closed the hearing on 21^st July, 2015 and on the same day passed the two impugned orders under Section 14B and 7Q of the EPF Act (period from 11/1998 to 02/2010 and 03/2010 to 12/2010).

5. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner then issued an order to the Bank, vide memo dated 17.02.2015 directing recovery of statutory dues for the period from 11/1998 to 02/2010 and 03/2010 to 12/2010.

6. It is submitted that though the hearing was closed on 21^st January, 2015, the petitioner received notice only on 22^nd January, 2015 after the hearing was concluded and informed the respondent authorities by way of an E-mail.

7. It is the further case of the petitioner that:-

(i) In 1995, when the Employees’ Pension Scheme, 1995 was sought to be promulgated, the Steel Workers Federation of India, which is the Federation of the trade unions representing the workmen of the petitioner company as well, filed a writ petition in the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta challenging the vires of the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995. An interim order was passed on 15^th March, 1996 staying the implementation of the Employees’ Provident Funds Miscellaneous Provisions (Amendment) Ordinance, 1995 till further order. All the units of Steel Authority of India Limited were impleaded in the said writ petition.

(ii) Union of India preferred Special Leave Petition from the Division Bench Order dated 19^th February, 1997; whereupon the Hon’ble Supreme Court clarified the interim order passed by the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court to the extent that those workmen who wanted to take the benefit of the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995 would have to accept the procedure under the Scheme and would have to contribute appropriately for availing the benefit of the Employees Pension Scheme.

(iii) The issue as regards the vires of the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995 was ultimately decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a judgment delivered on 11^th November, 2003. By the said judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995 to be intra-vires.

(iv) It is further stated in this context that at no point of time did the petitioner company object to the implementation of the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995, but it was at the instance of the employees of the petitioner company that such implementation had been stayed and thus the petitioner was disabled by operation of Courts order from depositing contributions to the Pension Fund under the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995.

8. Subsequently, the proceedings under Section 7A was initiated by the respondent authorities claiming damages and interest for the period, when the petitioners were unable to deposit due to the interim order of the High Court being in force.

9. It is further stated that du