S.R. Singh, J. - (1.) Heard Sri. H.S. Nigam appearing for the petitioner and Sri. J.N. Tiwari, appearing for the respondents.
(2.) Impugned herein is the order dated January 1, 1997 (Annexure 11) passed by the Re- gional Provident Fund Commissioner, U.P., Varanasi under Section 7-A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. By means of the said order, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, U.P., Varanasi has determined the dues payable for the period under reference by the petitioner on account of Provident Fund Contribution (Difference of Interest) (Employees' & Employers' share) Payable into A/c No. 1 to the tune of Rs 12,67,608/-. The period under reference is 1987-88to 1991-92.
(3.) It brooks no dispute that the petitioner had filed its reply to the show cause notice, served to it before passing the impugned order. It has also not been disputed and rightly so, in view of Division Bench decision of Patna High Court in Indian Mica and Micanite Industries Ltd. v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner: 1974 LIC 415 that proceedings under Section 7-A of the Act, have the complexion of quasi judicial proceedings and the order of assessment must be speaking order. A perusal of the impugned order would denote that the Regional: Provident Fund Commissioner, has passed the order without addressing himself to the replies submitted on behalf of the petitioner. Such an order, in my opinion cannot be characterised as an order passed in conformity with the requirement of law. The fact that Sub-section (1) of Section 7-A of the Employees" Provident Funds and Misc. Provisions Act, enjoins Regional Provident Fund Commissioner to conduct such enquiry as he may deem necessary and the fact that Sub-section (3 of Section 7-A provides for reasonable opportunity to be given to the employer of representing his case, make it abundantly clear that in case the reply is filed, the same has to be reckoned with and that is why the law requires the authorities under Section 7 A of the Act to decide the dispute or determine the amount due from the employer by a speaking order. The impugned order does not fulfil the test of a speaking order, Sri J.N. Tiwari has fairly conceded that the matter may be relegated to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, U.P. to pass a fresh order after considering the reply submitted on behalf of the petitioner.;