Judgment ( 1. ) THIS order shall dispose of sixteen writ petitions being w. P. No. 2495/2008, W. P. No. 2935/2008, W. P. No. 2936/2008, W. P. No. 2937/2008 W. P. N0. 3652/ 2008, W. P. No. 2508/2008, W. P. No 2316/2008, W. P. No. 2152/2008, W. P. No. 2222/2008, w. P. No. 2263/2008, - W. P. No. 2317/2008, w. P. No. 23 19/2008, W. P. No. 2372/2008, W. P. No. 2373/2008, W. P. No. 2374/2008 and w. P. No. 2580/2008 as the controversy in all these cases is identical. For the sake of convenience, the facts are borrowed from W. P. No. 2495/2008. The petitioner has approached this court challenging the communication/order dated January 29, 2008 whereby the petitioner- Company has been directed to deposit the EPF dues against the alleged evaded wages. The petitioner Company has pleaded that Regional Provident Fund Commissioner appears to have come to the opinion that the amount of EPF contribution should be deducted on the entire amount paid or payable to the employee, inclusive of basic wages, plus dearness allowance plus other allowances. ( 2. ) AT the outset, Shri S. C. Sharma, teamed counsel appearing for the respondent-Regional Provident fund Commissioner states that proceedings under section 7-A of the Employees Provident Fund and miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as Act) have been Initiated and the communication dated January 29, 2008 to the petitioner-Company is merely in the nature of a show cause notice and the final determination of the due amount shall be made In the aforesaid proceedings under Section 7-A of the Act. Shri Sharma further points out that the amount mentioned in the communication dated January 29, 2008 is only a tentative amount and shall not be treated to be binding on the parties, including the petitioner Company, in the aforesaid proceedings under Section 7-A of the act, in which the amount shall be so determined independently, in accordance with law. ( 3. ) SHRI G. S. Patwardhan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-Company, though feels satisfied with the statement made by the learned counsel for the respondent, but maintains that the method of determination of the due amount had already been laid down by the Appellate Tribunal In a number of cases and the communication dated January 29, 2008 issued to the petitioner-Company was Indeed contrary to the law laid clown by the Tribunal. Shri patwardhan further states that a liberty be granted to the petitioner-Company to challenge the aforesaid tentative determination of the amount, as mentioned in the communication dated January 29, 2008, in the proceedings under section 7a of the act. He also claims that a liberty be grated to the petitioner-Company to raise all legal objections, which are available to it in accordance with law, in the proceeding under section 7a of the Act. ( 4. ) IN view of the stand taken by the learned counsel for the parties, the present petition is disposed of with a direction that the amount mentioned in the communication/show cause notice dated January 29, 2008 shall not be treated to be final determination of the liability of the petitioner-Company and the liability of the petitioner Company shall only be determined In the proceedings under section 7a of the Act and in such proceedings, the petitioner-Company would be entitled to raise all pleas and take up all legal objections, which are available to it, In accordance with law. ( 5. ) IT Is further directed that If any preliminary objection with regard to the Jurisdiction of the authorities is taken by the petitioner-Company, then the said preliminary objection shall be decided at the first instance, before proceeding with the merits of the controversy. ( 6. ) WITH the aforesaid directions, the present petitions are disposed of.