Judgment : 1. This petition takes exception to the judgment and order dated 25.3.2010, passed by the Presiding Officer, Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, in Appeal No. A.T.A. No. 50 (9) of 2008. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, heard finally. 3. The background facts, as disclosed in the petition, are as under;- The petitioner is a Co-operative Sugar Factory duly registered under the provisions Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 and the provisions of Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, are applicable to the petitioner Karkhana. Accordingly the petitioner has been allotted Code No. MH/105145. The respondents issued summons to the petitioner on 18.11.2003, under Section 7-A of the E.P.F. Act asking the representative of the petitioner Karkhana to remain present with record so as to adjudicate the contribution towards the provident fund scheme for the period stated in the notice. The respondents on 23.5.2007, passed order thereby directing the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.28,19,582/-. Being dissatisfied with the said order, the petitioner had filed Review Application. However, it was informed to the petitioner, by respondent No.2, that the Review Application came to be rejected. The petitioner again filed Review Application in prescribed Form-9, stating in detail the facts of the case and the errors committed by the authorities. The same Review Application also came to be dismissed. The petitioner being aggrieved by that order, had filed Appeal bearing No. A.T.A. No. 50 (9) 2008 before the EPF Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi. The petitioner, before the Tribunal, had submitted in tabular form the brake up of the expenses incurred by the contractors from the contractual amount received by them from the petitioner. Alongwith the appeal, in addition to the above documents, the petitioner had placed on record all other relevant material. However, the learned Presiding Officer of the Appellate Tribunal without taking into consideration the case of the petitioner, has dismissed the appeal. Hence, this petition. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that though the Enforcement Officer has made enquiry, copy of the said report was not supplied to the petitioner herein. Thus, the petitioner herein i.e. the employer had no opportunity to offer reply to the said report. The other contentions are also raised by the counsel for the petitioner which are in ground Nos. 1 to 14 in the petition. Thus, the petitioner herein i.e. the employer had no opportunity to offer reply to the said report. The other contentions are also raised by the counsel for the petitioner which are in ground Nos. 1 to 14 in the petition. One of the important grounds, raised in the petition is that, whether the petitioner sugar factory can be held to be responsible for non payment of dues towards provident fund scheme in respect of the daily wages workers employed by the contractor engaged by the petitioners to do certain kind of works. All other important grounds are also raised in the petition. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents tried to justify the order passed by the authorities and also by the Appellate Tribunal. However, on specific instructions from the Respondent Officer, the counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the copy of the report of enquiry conducted by Enforcement Officer was not served upon the petitioner. In that view of the matter, and in view of the authoritative pronouncement of this Court in the case of Nandeeni Travels Pvt. Ltd. vs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Goa, [2003 (5) LJ Soft 146], the respondent authority was bound to follow the mandate under section 7-A of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1952. It is an admitted position that, the copy of the report of enquiry conducted by the Enforcement Officer, is not supplied to the petitioner. This Court in the case of Alphonsa English School, Pandharpur vs. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner and anr, reported in 2012 (2) Mh. L. J. 308 has considered the provisions of Section 7-A of the said Act and has taken a view that the mandate of Section 7-A of the said Act is required to be followed. The enquiry report needs to be served upon the employer so as to have opportunity to the employer to put forth their contentions. Considering the above features of the matter, I am of the opinion that the petition deserves to be allowed. 6. In the result, writ petition is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 25.3.2010, passed by the Presiding Officer, Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, in Appeal No. A.T.A. 50 (9) of 2008 and the orders passed by the respondent authorities are quashed and set aside. 7. However, it will be open for the respondent Nos. 6. In the result, writ petition is allowed. The impugned judgment and order dated 25.3.2010, passed by the Presiding Officer, Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, in Appeal No. A.T.A. 50 (9) of 2008 and the orders passed by the respondent authorities are quashed and set aside. 7. However, it will be open for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to continue with the enquiry from the stage of filing of report by the Enforcement Officer. It is needless to mention that the respondent No. 3 will supply a copy of the report submitted by the Enforcement Officer to the petitioner. After receiving a copy of the said report, it will be open for the petitioner to file reply thereby agitating all points available to the petitioner, before respondent No.3. The parties are at liberty to agitate the grounds available to them in the facts and circumstances of the case. 8. It is directed that the Enquiry Officer i.e. respondent No.3 to complete the inquiry within four months from today. The amount, if any, deposited with the respondents, will remain with them till the decision of the enquiry. 9. Rule is made absolute in the above terms. The petition is disposed of.