A review petition under Section 7B of the EPF & MP Act is not a de novo hearing; it requires the applicant to establish specific statutory grounds such as discovery of new evidence or error apparent on the record before a personal hearing or review can be mandated.

COMMON PRAYER

These Writ Petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the impugned orders bearing Ref.No.RO/SPR/Comp/527/TB/TAM/62869/2026 and Ref.No.RO/SPR/Comp/527/TB/TAM/64046/2026, by a common order dated 27.04.2026 passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II, Tambaram, to quash the same and consequently, direct the respondent to

reconsider the review application dated 27.03.2026 afresh after affording opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner.

COMMON ORDER

These Writ Petitions have been filed seeking to quash the impugned orders made in Ref.No.RO/SPR/Comp/527/TB/TAM/62869/2026 and Ref.No.RO/SPR/Comp/527/TB/TAM/64046/2026, passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II, Tambaram, by common order dated 27.04.2026 and consequently, direct the respondent to reconsider the review application dated 27.03.2026 afresh after affording opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioners.

2. The brief facts of the case are that a complaint was lodged against the petitioners’ companies alleging that the companies had engaged around 250 contractual employees and that the Employees Provident Fund (EPF) contribution had been deducted from the employees’ salaries at a lesser rate and that even the employer’s contribution had not been properly remitted. Pursuant to the complaint, the Enforcement Officer conducted an inspection. During the course of inspection, it was prima facie found that the employees were working

under the petitioners’ companies and proceedings under Section 7A of the Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (EPF & MP Act) were initiated.

3. During the course of the proceedings under Section 7A of the EPF & MP Act, the inspection report of the Enforcement officer, the complaint and other relevant materials were taken into consideration. Notice were issued to the petitioners’ companies and sufficient opportunity was afforded to participate in the enquiry under Section 7A of the Act. Upon conclusion of the enquiry, it was found that the petitioners’ companies were liable to pay a sum of Rs.1,05,54,526/-.

4. Aggrieved by the said order passed under Section 7A of the EPF & MP Act, the petitioners’ companies, without preferring any appeal before the Tribunal, filed review applications under Section 7B of the EPF & MP Act.

5. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, being the competent authority to consider the review applications, passed the impugned orders dated 30.03.2026 dismissing the review applications mainly on the ground that no valid ground had been made out for reviewing the earlier order passed under Section 7A of the EPF & MP Act.

6. The petitioners’ companies have filed the present writ petitions mainly on the ground that they were not afforded an opportunity of personal hearing during the enquiry conducted in the review applications under Section 7B of the Act. Section 7B of the EPF & MP Act reads as follows:

Any person aggrieved by an order made under sub-section (1) of Section 7-A, but from which no appeal has been preferred under this Act, and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of such order may apply for a review of that order to the officer who passed the order:

Provided that such o