JUDGMENT Alok Kumar Basu, J. 1. I have taken up this writ petition for disposal in presence of the learned advocate for the petitioners and the learned advocate for the P.F. Authority. 2. The main grievance of the writ petitioner is that the authority concerned did not apply its mind to calculate the interest component which is legally payable by the petitioners under Section 7(q) of the Act and the authority concerned also did not take into account the excess amount paid by the petitioner while determining the interest component payable by the petitioner. 3. The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that although Section itself does not provide for any application of judicial mind, while computing the interest amount payable by a person under the Act, law demands that since the amount is the subject matter of objective satisfaction of the authority concerned, the authority must take into account all the applicable parameters which shall be produced by the person concerned, while computing the interest amount, because Section 7(q) of the Act creates a legal liability and it is needless to say that legal liability must be ascertained subject to the documents and evidence produced before the authority concerned. 4. The learned advocate for the petitioner in this regard has drawn my attention to two decisions rendered by two learned single Judges of this Court respectively which are reported in 2003 II CLR 925 and 2007 III CLR 550. The learned advocate with reference to those two decisions submits that it has been held by the Court while deciding those two cases that rule of fairness always requires that an opportunity be given to establish the amount payable only after liability of the employer was fixed and this is a statutory right of the employer concerned and the authority must also discharge its statutory liability to this end. 5. Prasad, appearing for the P.F. Authority, on the other hand, submits that there has been a judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court to the contrary but at the time of hearing Prasad does not cite that decision before me. 5. Prasad, appearing for the P.F. Authority, on the other hand, submits that there has been a judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court to the contrary but at the time of hearing Prasad does not cite that decision before me. Prasad has, however, relied on an unreported judgment of a single Judge of this Court reported in W.P. No. 22548 (W)/2000 to press his point that when the statute is totally silent about requirement of any hearing so as to compute the interest part under Section 7(q) of the Act, the writ petitioner cannot as a matter of right claim any hearing for determination of the interest part payable by an employer. 6. On hearing the learned advocate for both parties and on careful examination of the legal provision contained in Section 7(q) of the Act, I share the view of Prasad that indeed the statute is silent regarding any requirement of further hearing for calculation of interest and it has been the legislative intention to fix up the liability on the employer, when there would be default in the matter of depositing any amount due under the Act and the question of interest would come only in case of such default. But having regard to the decisions rendered by the two learned single Judges of this Court in two different cases dealing with identical matter, I find that both their Lordships after examining the provisions of the Act and keeping in mind the guiding principle of natural justice, came to the conclusion that fair justice requires that the authority concerned while computing the interest must give a reasonable opportunity to the employer concerned to explain why the default was occasioned and if there is reasonable explanation explaining the default, the authority concerned shall take into consideration while computing the interest. 7. Naturally, in view of this legal position, in the present case, when there was no application of mind in taking into account the explanation given by the employer to explain the default, I must hold that the authority concerned in a mechanical manner without , application of mind, computed the interest ’component which cannot be supported in the eye of law. 8. 8. Accordingly, the present order determining the interest amount must be set aside and opportunity must be given to the employer concerned to explain the default and the authority concerned after considering all the relevant aspects finally determine the interest amount payable by the employer. At the same time, the authority concerned must take into account the excess amount as a matter of adjustment against the actual interest payable by the employer. 9. With this observation this writ petition succeeds without any order as to costs. 10. Let urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the learned advocate for both parties immediately after complying with all the formalities.