HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 2544 of 2013 Court No. - 9 HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR, J. 1. Heard Sri Gaurav Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Sri Brijesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 14.11.2012 passed by the respondent no. 1 under Section 7A(1) of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). 3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that earlier a notice dated 07.04.2010 was issued to the petitioners by the respondents on the basis of an inspection held on 13.03.2010 intending to bring the petitioners' establishments under the purview of the Act. In the aforesaid notice, it was specified that the establishment was a factory specified in Scheduled-I under the head 'Confectionery', therefore, it was covered under Section 1(3)(a) of the Act in which 25% were employees. The said notice was challenged before this Court in Writ-C No. 26335 of 2010 (Pariwar Food Products And Another vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner And Another) which was allowed and the impugned notice was quashed. The respondent no. 1 was directed to decide the objection of the petitioners afresh. The respondent no. 1 after reconsidering the objection of the petitioners dated 13.04.2010, had passed the order dated 14.11.2012 which is impugned in the present writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners had taken a Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Anil Kumar Srivastava, Gaurav Srivastava Counsel for Respondent(s) : Amit Negi, Brijesh Kumar Singh, S.C. Pariwar Food Products And Another .....Petitioner(s) Regional P.F. Commissioner And Another .....Respondent(s) specific plea in their objection that they manufacture Namkin, Dalmoth and Sev which do not come under the list of industry specified in Schedule-I and that they do not fall in the category of confectionery. The respondent no. 1 while considering the objection of the petitioners afresh came to the conclusion that the petitioners' establishment was not covered under Section 1(3)(a) of the Act. However, the respondent no. 1 proceeded to bring the establishment under Section 1(3)(b) of the Act but no fresh notice, inviting objection, was given to the petitioners as contemplated under the proviso to Section 1(3) or Section 7-A(3) of the Act. Therefore, the order is bad being in violation of principle of natural justice. 5. I have perused the record, the respondent no. 1 exempted the petitioners' establishment from the purview of the Act under Section 1(3)(a) of the Act. However, proceeded to pass a fresh order by consideration and analysis of documents as submitted by the establishment and as collected by the Enforcement Officer of the Employees' Provident Fund Organization during the course of hearing. The aforesaid observation in the order of the respondent no. 1 reflects that no reasonable opportunity was afforded to the petitioners before considering the establishment under the purview of the Act under Section 1(3)(b) of the Act. The respondent no.1 has recorded a finding that the petitioners' establishment manufactures and sells of Namkin. However, no finding has been recorded that the establishment is manufacturing and selling a Namkin as notified by the Central Government to bring it within the purview of the Act. The respondent no. 1, merely on the documents available on record, has held that the petitioners' establishment is a trading and commercial establishment, therefore, the provisions of the Act and scheme framed thereunder are applicable on it. In my opinion, if once the respondent no. 1 came to the conclusion that the establishment does not fall within the purview of the Act under Section 1(3)(a) of the Act and it intended to proceed against the petitioners under Section 1(3)(b) of the Act, a fresh notice should have been issued or a reasonable opportunity afforded to the petitioners to file their objection to show that they do not fall under the purview of the Act even under the aforesaid section. 6. In view of the aforesaid facts, the order dated 14.11.2012 is not sustainable as reasonable opportunity had not been afforded to the WRIC No. 2544 of 2013 2 petitioners. 7. The present writ petition is accordingly, allowed. 8. The order of the respondent no. 1 dated 14.11.2012 is quashed. 9. However, the respondent no. 1 can proceed against the petitioners after giving a fresh notice to them as contemplated under the Act. October 10, 2025 M.S. Ansari WRIC No. 2544 of 2013 3 (Arun Kumar,J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHD SAQIB ANSARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad