Order We have heared counsel for the parties at length and with their consent, this Letters Patent Appeal is being disposed at this stage itself. We may only notice that the respondents have filed their counter affidavit even at this stage. 2. The appellant-company is aggrieved by the order passed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Ranchi, under section 7A of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, in respect of its establishment for the relevant period from January, 1989 to November, 1992. 3. It appears from the impugned order dated 18.1.1994 that the matter was fixed for hearing on several dates. On some of the dates, the adjudicating authority, itself, was not available and on several dates, it appears that the appellant-company did not take diligent steps in the proceeding. Be that as it may, we find no fault with the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Ranchi who proceeded to pass an order u/s 7 A of the Act, even in the absence of the representative of the appellant-company. 4. What however we wish to emphasise is the fact that an adjudication u/s 7 A of the aforesaid Act is in a nature of quasi-judicial adjudication, and therefore, the authority can base its conclusion and impose liability only on the basis of the material on record after following a fair procedure. In view of the fact that the order is a quasi judicial order a mere perusal of the order must disclose the reasons for the conclusions reached by the authority. This is the quality of a quasi judicial order. In the instant case, we find from the order of the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Ranchi that he has recorded a general finding in one paragraph of the order observing that considering the facts of the cases and the circumstances, and the information available on the file, he has determined the dues for the period of default in respect of 100 eligible employees as this figure was never contested by the employer and has been conceded by accepting the observations issued by the Enforcement Officer on 15.10.92. 5. The observations of the Enforcement Officer dated 15.10.92 were deined by the appellant-company as would be evident from Annexure-3 dated 24.10.92. 6. We have not been able to appreciate the basis on which the authority has determined the strength of 100 workmen employed by the appellant-company. 5. The observations of the Enforcement Officer dated 15.10.92 were deined by the appellant-company as would be evident from Annexure-3 dated 24.10.92. 6. We have not been able to appreciate the basis on which the authority has determined the strength of 100 workmen employed by the appellant-company. At least that does not become apparent from a mere perusal of the order nor does it disclose any basis on which the Enforcement Officer came to the prima facie finding that 100 workmen were employed. 7. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition observing that the authority had considered all aspects of the matter and passed the impugned order. 8. In our view, the order of the authority should disclose the reasons for the conclusions reached by it. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order dated 18.1.1994 passed by the Assistant Provident Fund Officer, Ranchi, but we direct him to pass a fresh order after hearing the appellant giving reasons for the conclusions reached by him, particularly, as regards the employment of 100 workmen by the appellant-company. The appellant-company is directed through its counsel to appear before the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Ranchi, through its authorised representative on the 3rd of June, 1996 so that the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Ranchi, may fix a date in the proceeding and dispose of the matter afresh. If the appellant-company fails to appear, it will be open to the authority to proceed in the matter ex parte. 9. Nothing said in this order should be construed as an expression of opinion on the merit of the order or the claim of the appellant-company. 10. This Letters Patent Appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs.