JUDGMENT :- 1. The petitioner is manufacturing Films and Bags at R.S.No.266, Shed-B, Main Road, Odiampet, Villianur Post, Puducherry. 2. According to the petitioner, he started the manufacturing activity from June 2002. However, he employed less than 20 workmen. According to the petitioner, he wrote a letter in September 2010 to the first respondent that now he has employed 20 persons and therefore, he is covered by the Employees Provident Fund Act and he is willing to pay contribution. It is stated that thereafter the petitioner is regularly paying the contribution. While so, inspection was made by the Enforcement Officer of the Department. The Enforcement Officer gave his reports. Based on the reports, the impugned order dated 29.4.2013 was passed under section 7A of the Employees Provident Fund Act, directing the petitioner to pay contribution form April 2002 onwards to the tune of Rs.14,35,590/-. 3. The petitioner has filed this writ petition to quash the aforesaid order. 4. Heard both sides. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the normal course, the petitioner could have preferred appeal to the appellate Tribunal as provided under the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. But, he has chosen to file this writ petition since the impugned order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice based on the reports dated 19.1.2011 and 5.11.2012. It is submitted that the report dated 19.1.2011 was not at all given to the petitioner and a part of the report dated 5.11.2012 was given to him and the full report was not given to him. Hence, the impugned order has to be set aside and the matter has to be remanded back to decide the matter afresh after furnishing the report and after hearing the petitioner. 6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Department submitted that the petitioner has effective remedy before the appellate Tribunal and therefore, he cannot invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under section 226 of the Constitution. He has further submitted that the petitioner wrote a letter dated 14.6.2013 admitting that they have employed the labour strength not exceeding 20 persons and therefore, there is no use in remanding the matter back to the authority to hear the petitioner after furnishing copy of the reports. 7. He has further submitted that the petitioner wrote a letter dated 14.6.2013 admitting that they have employed the labour strength not exceeding 20 persons and therefore, there is no use in remanding the matter back to the authority to hear the petitioner after furnishing copy of the reports. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted by way of reply that the petitioner no where admitted in the letter dated 14.6.2013 that they employed 20 workmen from 2002 onwards. 8. I have considered the submissions made on either side. 9. The impugned order dated 29.4.2013 relies on the reports dated 19.1.2011 and 5.11.2012 of the Enforcement Officer. The Enforcement Officer came to the conclusion that the petitioner employed 20 workmen from April 2002 onwards and based on the reports, the impugned order was passed. 10. The letter dated 14.6.2013 of the petitioner that is relied on by the learned counsel for the respondents cannot render much assistance to the department. While the Department states that the petitioner has admitted that the labour strength was 20 in the letter dated 14.6.2013, the same is disputed by the petitioner by relying on the last paragraph in the same letter. Hence, it is a disputed question of fact and the same has to be gone into by the authority after giving opportunity to the petitioner by furnishing the reports of the Enforcement Officer referred to above. 11. Since the impugned order was passed without furnishing the reports of the Enforcement Officer, while relying on the same, I am of the considered view that the impugned order was passed in blatantviolation of the principles of natural justice. The first respondent cannot pass any adverse order relying on any material/reports without furnishing the same to the aggrieved person before passing the order. 12. In the said circumstances, I am inclined to quash the impugned order and the matter is remitted back to the first respondent and the first respondent is directed to pass appropriate order after furnishing the reports of the Enforcement Officer. 13. The writ petition is disposed of with the above direction. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.