Judgment:
V.V. Kamat, J.
1. The petitioners M/s. Hotel Dove Bird have filed this petition making out the grievance with regard to the order (Exh. 'B'), which is in the nature of a demand under the provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 passed by the respondent No. 7--Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Maharashtra and Goa. By the demand dated July 24, 1987, the respondent No.2 claimed Rs. 1,31,855-80. In the petition and submissions made before me by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners have paid and were paid the contribution and accordingly paid Rs. 37,076-85 during the period in question. The period in question is from August 1, 1982 till the date of the notice of demand.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, viz. Shri Pathak for the petitioners and Shri Master for all the respondents.
3. Taking into consideration the submission that is made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order is passed without giving a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to place his case before the respondents, the petition can be disposed of on the basis of grant of rule, which I hereby accord and taking up the petition for hearing and final disposal with consent.
4. The petitioner is a partnership firm and is brought under the purview of the said Act--The Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act. 1952. By virtue of letter dated August 1, 1982 and in pursuance thereof, the petitioners received a notice dated September 3, 1986 calling upon to pay the provident fund contribution commencing on and after August 1, 1982 till the date of the notice.
5. The learned counsel placed reliance on Section 7A of the Act making provisions for the conduct and inquiry and contended on the basis of Sub-section 3 thereof that such an order has to be after the satisfactory grant of period and opportunity to the petitioner in representing his case. The learned counsel contended that he received a summons dated May 4, 1987 calling upon to remain present on May 21, 1987. The learned counsel contends that there is no satisfaction of these provisions affording reasonable opportunity in placing his material. The learned counsel submitted that amount of Rs 37,076-85 is already deposited by them and there is the record to that effect by letter dated September 12, 1987.
6. I have heard Shri Master for the respondents.
7. Taking into consideration that the requirements of reasonable opportunity arc statutorily provided apart from the requirements of the satisfaction in regard thereto on the principles of natural justice, proper and effective order would be to direct respondent No. 2 to ascertain the question of the contribution for the period in question alter affording the reasonable opportunity to petitioners and after calling all the statutory provisions of the Act. The impugned order is, therefore, quashed and set aside and therespondent No.2 is directed to ascertain thequestion of contribution by following theprovisions of Section 17 of the Act. affordingreasonable opportunity to the petitioners to placetheir case before him.
8. Rule is accordingly made absolute. The impugned order dated July 24, 1987 (Exh.'B') and the demand notice dated August 13, 1991 and April 29, 1991 (Exh. 'E') are quashed and set aside and the proceedings are remitted to the respondent No. 2 to decide the question in the light of the above observations and according to law. On the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.