JUDGMENT : J.P. MUKERJI, J. Both these writ applications are being disposed of by this common judgement and order. 2. These writs challenge the show-cause notice dated 5th March, 2010 and the adjudication order dated 21st April, 2010. 3. First of all, I observe that the third, fourth and fifth heads of charge in the show-cause notice are as follows:— “AND whereas a sum of Rs. 82,72,264.30 is shown as Unclaimed Deposited, which should be paid to rightful member successors. AND whereas Rs. 10,75,795.40 shown against interest due to outgoing members which should be paid. AND whereas Salary reconciliation statement monthwise, headwise has not been furnished.” 4. Significantly, they have not been dealt with at all in the adjudication order. Therefore, I presume that the provident fund authority was satisfied with the answer given to them by the writ petitioners and did not want to proceed with those charges. Hence, they are deemed to be dropped. 5. The sixth charge against the writ petitioners was as follows:— “AND whereas Bank balance and figures shown in Appendix ‘A’ for March 2009 have not been reconciled” 6. This was replied to by them by a letter which was received by the provident fund authorities on 16th February, 2010. 7. But in the above adjudication, there is no discussion as to how the above reply was dealt with by the provident fund authorities. 8. Now we are left for two charges being the first and second which were as follows: “AND whereas it has been observed that few Securities were purchased and kept in physical custody. AND whereas the Trust Fund has not constituted as per Para, 79(C)(4) of the Scheme i.e. the employer shall be the Chairman of the Trust. This is also violation of condition No. 1 of Para 27AA of the scheme.” 9. In the adjudication order, there is reference to these charges along with some other charges which were not mentioned in the show-cause notice. 10. It was argued by Mr. Sengupta, learned Senior Advocate for the writ petitioner, that under section 17(1) of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, the appropriate government had the power to exempt an organisation from the operation of all or any of the provisions of the scheme. 10. It was argued by Mr. Sengupta, learned Senior Advocate for the writ petitioner, that under section 17(1) of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, the appropriate government had the power to exempt an organisation from the operation of all or any of the provisions of the scheme. When the application for exemption was pending, the Commissioner in exercise of his powers under para 79 of the Employees' Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 could relax the application of the scheme in such manner as he thought fit. An order granting some relaxation was granted, pending the above consideration for exemption. 11. Therefore, it was very rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel that exemption from the scheme and grant of relaxation pending exemption were quite different matters. 12. In the adjudication order, I find that there is a finding that the writ petitioners are held to be in violation of para 27AA of the scheme. Now this para 27AA only relates to breach of the conditions of exemption granted under the scheme. When the issue of exemption was under consideration, there could not be any breach of the conditions of exemption, which were then nonexistent, as rightly pointed out by Mr. Sengupta. 13. What is worse, while passing the order, the relaxation granted under paragraph 79 has been cancelled. When no case was put to the petitioners to answer for breach of an alleged condition of the relaxation order or when the answer given by the petitioners was not considered, the relaxation order could not have been revoked. 14. For those reasons, the show-cause notice dated 5th March, 2010 except the charges held to be dropped hereinbefore, as well as the adjudication order dated 21st April, 2010, are quashed and set aside. This will not preclude the provident fund organisation to issue a fresh show-cause, alleging violation of the relaxation order only, as far as they may be permissible to do so after passing of this order. No order cancelling or staying the relaxation is to be passed unless it is reasoned and without giving an opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioners. All parties concerned to act on a signed photocopy of this order upon the usual undertakings.