SOUMITRA PAL, J. ( 1 ) IN the instant writ application the Indian Oil Corporation ("for short i. O. L. ") has challenged the order dated 4. 5. 98/29. 6. 98 passed under Section 7a of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for Short "the Act") determining the dues payable by the petitioner in respect of the employees engaged through M/s. S. N. Building Works (for short "the contractor") for the period 5/94 to 12/96. ( 2 ) MR. Arijit Chaudhuri, Senior Advocate, appearing for the petitioner assailing the order under challenge submitted that under the Act no duty has been cast upon the I. O. L. to maintain the records of the contractors and for that reason the company was not able to file the statement of the dues payable for the period of enquiry. Submission was made that as the contractor did not appear in spite of the notice issued under Section 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short "the Code") it was the duty of the respondent concerned to enforce the summons and ensure the attendance of the said contractor. Not having done so the respondent should not have saddled the petitioner with the liabilities of the contractor. Had the respondent enforced the appearance of the contractor, records could have been produced and the exact quantum of dues payable by the contractor could have been ascertained Moreover, it was submitted, there was a failure of natural justice as the I. O. L. was not given opportunity to cross-examine the Enforcement officer representing the department. Mr. Chaudhuri submitted that the respondent made the calculation for the entire period taking the daily wages @ Rs. 140 per day and have arrived at a figure of Rs. 4,35,003/- which is not tenable. According to him even if calculation is made on the basis @ of Rs. 140 per day for the entire period it cannot be more than Rs. 3,13,482/ -. Attention was drawn to the calculation made by the petitioner at paragraph 8 of the writ petition, which according to Mr. Chaudhuri, is just, proper and correct as in paragraph 5 in the affidavit in opposition the respondent has not been able to deal with the said calculation. ( 3 ) HAVING heard Mr. Chaudhuri for the petitioner, I am of the view that the writ petition should succeed. Chaudhuri, is just, proper and correct as in paragraph 5 in the affidavit in opposition the respondent has not been able to deal with the said calculation. ( 3 ) HAVING heard Mr. Chaudhuri for the petitioner, I am of the view that the writ petition should succeed. Though notice was issued under section 32 of the Code, the respondent did not ensure the presence of the defaulting contractor by compelling his attendance by taking recourse to the provisions of said section. In the order under challenge it has been recorded but the contractors have not availed of the opportunity in spite of service of notice under Section 32 of Civil Procedure Code. . . . . . . . " Thereafter, it has been held that "i find force in the contention of the department because the contractors have elected not to represent their case inspite of giving them opportunity and the establishment has not maintained preserved any records in relation to the employees engaged through the said contractors. " Accepting the contention of the department it was held as follows" I, therefore, uphold the contention of the department to calculate the provident fund dues taking rs. 140/- per day as the wages paid to the workers for the entire period from 5/94 to 12/96". ( 4 ) IN the affidavit in opposition it has been admitted by the respondent that"the representative of the establishment filed evidence to support the service of summons upon the contractor firm. None of the contractors appeared at the time of hearing to adduce evidence. . . . . . . . Inspite of issuance of notice under Section 32 of the C. P. C. the contractors did not appear and failed to produce the records to establish the amount of wages paid to the workers. . . . . . . . . " ( 5 ) SECTION 32 of the Code is set out hereunder :-"32. Penalty for default. The Court may compel the attendance of any person to whom a summons has been issued under Section 30 and for that purpose may (a) issue a warrant for his arrest ; (b) attach and sell his property; (c) impose a fine upon him not exceeding five hundred rupees; (d) order him to furnish security for his appearance and in default commit him to the civil prison. " ( 6 ) THUS, the Section empowers the officer concerned to compel attendance of a person to whom summons had been issued. Under Section 7a (2) of the Act, the officer conducting the enquiry under Section 7a (1) of the act has the same powers as are vested in a Court under the Code for trying a suit in respect of the matters enumerated therein and such enquiry shall be a judicial proceeding. Therefore, the respondent conducting the enquiry had the power to compel attendance of the contractor. Had the provisions of section 32 of the Code been enforced by the respondent compelling the contractor to appear, the contractor could have appeared and produced documents to establish the amount of wages paid to the workers particularly the period prior to July, 1996. The respondent not having enforced the summons, did not compel the attendance of the contractor and thereby failed in the duty cast upon him under the Act. In the backdrop the acceptance of the contentions of the department by the respondent for taking into account the rate of Rs. 140/- per day for the entire period of the engagement of the employees that is from 5/94 to 12/96 is erroneous. The error is apparent for the reason since it has been recorded in the order under challenge "it is also admitted fact as per the admission of both the parties to the dispute that 13 employees were engaged through M/s. S. N. Building Works for the period 5/ 94 to 12/96. It is also admitted fact by both the parties that the workers were paid daily wages @ Rs. 140/- per day from July, 1996 to 4th October, 1996. The only dispute in respect of the employees engaged through this contractor is that the rate of wages paid is not available for the period prior to 7/96 and after 4. 10. 96. " (Emphasis supplied ). Though admittedly the rate prior to 7/96 was not available, while passing the order under challenge, for the entire period the daily wages was taken @ Rs. 140/ -. The department 'requested' for taking into account the rate of Rs. 140/- as the basis for assessment of dues for the entire period of engagement of employees i. e. 5/94 to 12/96, the same was accepted and order under challenge was passed. 140/ -. The department 'requested' for taking into account the rate of Rs. 140/- as the basis for assessment of dues for the entire period of engagement of employees i. e. 5/94 to 12/96, the same was accepted and order under challenge was passed. The actual quantum of daily wages paid could, have been ascertained had the respondent compelled the attendance of the contractor under Section 32 of the Code. Further the calculation made at paragraph 8 of the petition has not been controverted by the respondent in paragraph 5 of the affidavit in opposition where it has been simply stated :- "the calculation shown in paragraph 8 of the petition not correct. " Such a statement in the affidavit in opposition not being backed up with proper figures shows that the respondent failed to deal with the calculation of the petitioner. ( 7 ) IN view of the discussions in the preceding paragraphs and the statement contained in the affidavit in opposition I hold that the quantum of dues as calculated by the respondent is not based on records and therefore, not correct. I am constrained to reiterate had the summons been enforced by the respondent, the presence of the contractor could have been ensured and documents and/or records might have been produced to ascertain the exact amount of the dues of the contractor. There the respondent erred in not invoking the provisions of the Code, Hence, I find that the order dated 4. 5. 98/ 29. 6. 98 being Annexure 'c' to the writ petition cannot be sustained and should be quashed. ( 8 ) THUS, the writ petition succeeds. ( 9 ) THE order dated 4. 5. 98/29. 6. 98 being Annexure 'c' to the writ petition is set aside and quashed. The respondent is directed to refund the proportionate amount out of Rs. 6,40,254/- allegedly being the arrears of the contractor concerned deposited by the I. O. L. within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of the order. No order as to costs.