- (1.) The petitioner in this writ petition under Article 226 dated January 31,2008 is questioning two orders of the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Sub-Regional Office, Durgapur dated April 20/23, 2007 (WP p.51) and November 30/December 3, 2007 (WP p.89). The order dated April 20/23, 2007 was passed under section 7-A of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the order dated November 30/December 3,2007 was passed under section 7-B of the Act. One M/s. Development Building Construction (in short DBC), an establishment to which the provisions of the Act and the schemes framed thereunder were applicable, was engaged by the petitioner as contractor while executing its project: Santhaldih Thermal Plant in Purulia. By a summons dated March 29, 2006 the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (in short APFC) initiated proceedings against DBC under section 7-A of the Act. The allegation was that DBC did not pay contributions for some of its employees for the period from March, 1991 to August, 2001. On the basis of information that the employees were engaged for execution of the petitioner's project, the APFC issued a summons dated March 23, 2007 against the petitioner. The petitioner participated in the section 7-A proceedings and contended that it "could not trace the records of employees engaged" by DBC while executing of its project.
(2.) After giving the petitioner's authorized representatives opportunity of hearing, but without examining any witness or admitting any document in evidence, the APFC passed the order dated April 20/23, 2007 saying "it is observed from the file that the Enforcement Officers vide their report dated 16.12.2005 has submitted the dues statement for the period from 3/1991 to 8/2001."
(3.) There is nothing to show that the report dated December 16, 2005 was disclosed, or that a copy thereof was supplied to the petitioner's authorized representatives. Solely on the basis of the report the APFC held that the petitioner was liable to pay Rs. 22,95,910 for the employees engaged during the period by DBC while executing its project in question.;