JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) THE petitioner has filed this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India in the matter of section 7 (A)of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, for quashing the order dated 10-11-1982 (Annexure-I) passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Indore. ( 2. ) THE facts giving rise to this petition may be stated, in brief, thus : the petitioner who was an employee working with respondent No. 2 Malay metal Industries, Indore, of which respondent No. 3 was a partner, made a complaint before the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Indore, that respondent No. 2 is not giving benefit of provident fund scheme to its certain employees, who are eligible for the same. On the basis of that complaint, a squad of Inspectors was directed to visit the factory of respondent No. 2, who did not produce the relevant records before the Inspectors. Therefore, respondent No. 1 served notice under section 7 (A) of the said act on the respondent No. 2 and called upon to produce documents and explain why the Act may not be made applicable and the employees may not be given membership and other benefits. After notice, the respondent no. 2 appeared before respondent No. 1 who recorded the statements of individual employees concerned who were cross examined on behalf of respondent No. 2, who was represented by counsel. However, respondent no. 2 failed to produce any relevant record. Therefore, believing the statement of the employees, respondent No. I came to the conclusion that the employees are eligible for provident fund membership and accordingly directed respondent No. 2 to make the payment of Rs. 94,019. 18 P. by its order dated 3-3-1982 (Anuexure A ). Similarly the claim of one employee baburao was also investigated and respondent No. 2 was directed to deposit rs. 13,423. 60 P. by an order dated 17-5-1982 (Ann. B ). ( 3. ) AGAINST this order respondent No. 2 filed M. P. No 613/82 in the high Court, Jabalpur, which was dismissed summarily on 6-5-1982 as per annexure C. The respondent No. 2 thereafter preferred special leave petition before the Supreme Court of India which was also dismissed on 25-5-1982 as per Annexure D. ( 4. ) THEREAFTER respondent No. 2 filed an application before respondent no. ) THEREAFTER respondent No. 2 filed an application before respondent no. 1 on 14-6-1982 requesting for review of the orders passed under Annexures A and B on the ground that since the records are now available with them they may be given opportunity of hearing as per Annexure E. On this application notice was issued to the petitioner who filed his reply on 20-10-1982 and raised an objection that since the matter was already decided and the decision is confirmed by the High Court as well as the Supreme court of India, respondent No. 1 has no jurisdiction to review the order as there is no provision of review in the said Act. ( 5. ) IN the meanwhile respondent No. 1 kept the recovery in abeyance as per Annexure H. However, the respondent No. 1 without giving any notice to the petitioner reviewed the order on 10-11-1982 as per Annexure 1. Hence this petition. ( 6. ) THE respondent No. 2 has contested the petition mainly on the ground that before issuing notice or taking any action under section 7 (A)of the said Act it was obligatory on respondent No. 1 to first take action under para 26b of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952, which is as follows :-26b. Resolution of doubts. If any question arises whether an employee is entitled or required to become or continue as a member, or as regards the date from which he is so entitled or required to become a member, the decision thereon of the Regional Commissioner shall be final: provided that no decision shall be given unless both the employer and the employee have been heard. " The same having not been done he had no jurisdiction to take action under section 7 (A) of the Act and, therefore, the impugned order passed by respondent No. 1 being proper and in accordance with law the petition deserves to be dismissed. ( 7. ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no provision of review under the said Act and consequently respondent No. 1 had no jurisdiction to review the order already passed by him, which had become final even up to the Supreme Court. ( 7. ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is no provision of review under the said Act and consequently respondent No. 1 had no jurisdiction to review the order already passed by him, which had become final even up to the Supreme Court. The learned counsel for the respondents did not dispute this fact that unless and until a statute empowers a particular authority the power of review, it has no jurisdiction to review its order already passed. ( 8. ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the objection taken by the respondent No. 2 that para 26 B of the Provident Fund Scheme has not been complied with, was an after-thought as they never raised any such dispute before respondent No. 1. On the contrary they very well knew the objections raised by the petitioner employee before the Provident Fund commissioner and it is on that basis the respondent No. 2, who was represented by a counsel, cross-examined the witnesses examined and it is only after taking that evidence into consideration that respondent No. 1 passed the initial order Annexure A. He, therefore, submitted that a flimsy ground has been raised by the respondent that as they were not possessed of the necessary account books at the initial stage, they were subsequently ready to produce the same for which they sought an opportunity. He, therefore, submitted that even the impugned order was passed without giving them any notice which has obviously resulted in failure of justice. He also submitted that it is difficult to believe that when admittedly the petitioner and other employees were working in the factory of respondent No. 2 he did not have any record of the wages paid to them as atleast the wages paid for the last few months prior to the filing of the petition could have been produced by respondent No. 2 to indicate as to whether the employees are covered by the scheme or not. The same having not been done the impugned order deserves to be quashed. ( 9. ) ON the other hand the learned counsel for the respondents relying upon the decision in Sashidharan v. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, TVM, 1982 Lab I C 597. submitted that the impugned order is not passed in a review petition, but under an independent provision i. e. under para 26-B of the said Scheme. ( 9. ) ON the other hand the learned counsel for the respondents relying upon the decision in Sashidharan v. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, TVM, 1982 Lab I C 597. submitted that the impugned order is not passed in a review petition, but under an independent provision i. e. under para 26-B of the said Scheme. He also submitted that the initial order was an administrative order and not a judicial order and consequently unless and until the respondent No. 1 had resolved the doubt as to whether a particular employee is entitled or is required to become or continue as a member, he could not proceed or take any action under section 7 (A) of the Act. ( 10. ) AFTER hearing the learned counsel and after going through the annexures as also the case law cited we are of opinion that this petition deserves to be allowed. It is apparent that the respondent No. 2 never raised any question before respondent No. 1 as per para 26-B of the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952. On the contrary from the order annexure A it is quite clear that the respondent No. 2 very well knew the case of the petitioner and other employees which they have to meet and even though the employees were cross-examined on behalf of respondent no. 2 by their counsel, no such plea or objection was even raised nor there was any doubt raised as provided by para 26-B of the Scheme. Their only grievance was that as they were not possessed of the necessary documents, including registers they were not in a position to lead evidence. ( 11. ) HOWEVER, it appears, this was a pretext as at least from the current salary register the respondents could very well prove that these employees are not covered by the scheme or are not entitled to become members thereof. In fact the plea of the provisions of para 26-B was not taken even before the High Court or the Supreme Court of India but the only plea taken was that respondent No. 2 could not produce the necessary evidence as they were not possessed of the same at the relevant time. In fact the plea of the provisions of para 26-B was not taken even before the High Court or the Supreme Court of India but the only plea taken was that respondent No. 2 could not produce the necessary evidence as they were not possessed of the same at the relevant time. That apart Annexure E, which is a letter sent by respondent No. 2 dated 14th June, 1982 to respondent No. 1 the prayer is for reviewing the order on the basis of the verbal instructions given by respondent No. 1. In the application also the respondent No. 2 has never raised any dispute pertaining to the provisions of para 26b of the Scheme. It is somewhat surprising that the respondent No. 1 who had no jurisdiction to review the matter should have treated the initial order as an ex parte order and given an opportunity to the respondent No. 2 to produce the relevant records for review of the earlier order as he did not possess any such power of review. ( 12. ) THEREFORE, in our opinion, the impugned order Annexure I virtually amounts to a review, though in the garb of para 26b of the Employees provident Funds Scheme, 1952 which was never the contention of respondent No. 2 earlier at any point of time. Thus the authorities cited on behalf of the respondents being distinguishable does not help the case of the respondent No. 2. It is also difficult to agree with the submission made by the learned counsel for respondent No. 2 that the original order annexure A was an administrative order and not a judicial order. ( 13. ) IN the result we are of opinion that respondent No. 1 had no jurisdiction to review the original order and pass the impugned order annexure I, which must be quashed and set aside. The petition is, therefore, allowed with costs. The impugned order Annexure I dated 10th november. 1982 passed by respondent No. 1 is quashed and set aside and the orders dated 3-3-1982 Annexure A and the one dated 17th May 1982 annexure B are restored. Counsels fee Rs. 200. The amount of security deposit on verification be returned to the petitioner. Petition allowed.