O R D E R

(through video conference)

Heard Mr. M.Ramkumar, Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. K.Gurunathan, Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent and perused the materials placed on record, apart from the pleadings of the parties.

2. The Respondent conducted an enquiry under Section 7-A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the EPF Act' for short) for the period from June 2012 to April 2013 in respect of the establishment of the Petitioner and by Order in File No. TN/NGL/Enf/Circle 32/79443/2013 dated 04.12.2013 arrived at the conclusion that the Petitioner had not produced any records despite summons issued for 10 hearings and as such, it was determined on the basis of the report of the Enforcement Officer and other available documents and records that a sum of Rs. 4,68,361/- was payable in respect of 57 employees for the contribution towards provident fund dues. In furtherance thereto, the Respondent passed another Order No. TN/NGL/79443/Enf/Circle 32/8F/2012 dated 12.03.2014 for the recovery of the aforesaid provident fund dues by attachment of the bank account of the Petitioner with Axis Bank, Nagercoil under Section 8-F of the EPF Act. The Petitioner thereafter made an application for review dated 17.03.2014 invoking Section 7-B of the EPF Act with certain documents, but the Respondent by Order No. TN/NGL/79443/Enf(32)2013 dated 25.03.2014 rejected the same for the following reasons:-

“(i) The review application is not in prescribed format.

(ii) The review application is not filed by the employer of the establishment.

(iii) Ten chances were already afforded for personal hearing during the inquiry under Section 7A of the Act and the Employer has not attended the hearing with the summoned records."

Aggrieved thereby, the Petitioner has assailed the aforesaid orders dated 12.03.2014 and 25.03.2014 and has sought for consequential direction to the Respondent to treat the application dated 17.03.2014 either as a Review Application under Section 7-B of the EPF Act or as an application to set aside the exparte order under Section 7-A(4) of the EPF Act, in this Writ Petition.

3. The question that arises for consideration in this Writ Petition is whether the Respondent is justified in rejecting the application for review filed by the Petitioner under Section 7-B of the EPF Act?

4. Learned Counsel for the Respondent in justification of the refusal of the Respondent to entertain the application for review, points out that Form 9 of the Employees' Provident Fund Scheme, 1952, prescribes the format of the application for review under Section 7-B of the EPF Act and the application dated 17.03.2014 submitted by the Petitioner does not satisfy that requirement. It is further contended that the person who has signed the application dated 17.03.2014 as authorized signatory of the Petitioner has not submitted any proof authorizing him to do so and in the absence thereof, the application for review cannot be accepted. It is further highlighted that the order dated 12.03.2014 passed under Section 7-A of the EPF Act clearly records that the Petitioner has been granted sufficient opportunities to produce documents, but he had not produced the same despite various summons issued in that regard.

5. At this juncture, it would be useful to refer to dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in N.Balaji -vs- Virendra Singh [(2004) 8 SCC 312], where it has been observed as follows:-

“10. In the matter of applicability of the procedural rigours the Constitution Bench of this Court in Sardar Amarjit Singh Kalra -vs- Pramod Gupta [(2003) 3 SCC 272] has observed that laws of procedure are meant to regulate effectively, assist and aid the object of substantial and real justice and not to foreclose even an adjudication on the merits of substantial rights of citizen under personal, property and other laws. With the march and progress of law, the new horizons explored