JUDGMENT : Paresh Upadhyay, J. The subject matter of both these petitions is the order of the Employees' Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal dated 30.01.2013 in ATA No.397(5)2011 and therefore both the petitions are considered and decided together. Special Civil Application No.10357 of 2013 is filed by M/s. Shiva Industrial Security Agency Pvt. Ltd. Surat, making grievance that though it has succeeded before the Tribunal, and as per the order of the Tribunal dated 30.01.2013, the Employees' Provident Fund Department is required to refund the amount ofRs.92,78,961/to it, the same is not being done, inspite of even the further order of the Tribunal in that regard dated 01.04.2013. The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Surat has moved this Court by filing petition, being Special Civil Application No.10628 of 2013 challenging the said order of the Tribunal dated 30.01.2013 and consequential order dated 01.04.2013. 2. Heard Mr. K.M.Patel, learned senior advocate with Mr.Dhiraj M.Patel, learned advocate for the Company and Mr.Niral Mehta, learned advocate for the authorities of the Employees' Provident Fund Department in both the petitions. 3.1 The relevant facts, for the purpose of deciding these petitions, as emerging from record are as under. 3.2 The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner Surat, had passed an order under Section 7A of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, which was challenged by the Company before Employees' Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal allowed the appeal vide order dated 30.01.2013. As the consequence thereof, the amount which was deposited by the Company was required to be refunded to it, which the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Surat, did not do. The said amount isRs.92,78,961/. 3.3 Aggrieved by inaction on the part of the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Surat, in refunding the said amount, the Company again approached the Tribunal and since no response came from the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Surat in that regard, the Tribunal gave direction to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Surat vide order dated 01.04.2013 to refund the said amount to the Company. 3.4 Even then the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Surat has not refunded the amount and therefore the Company has filed the present petition being Special Civil Application No. 10357 of 2013, seeking direction from this Court against the department to refund the said amount with interest. 3.4 Even then the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Surat has not refunded the amount and therefore the Company has filed the present petition being Special Civil Application No. 10357 of 2013, seeking direction from this Court against the department to refund the said amount with interest. 4.1 Learned advocate for the petitioner Company has contended that the authorities of the department have acted in very highhanded manner and though earlier round of litigation being Special Civil Application No.617 of 2009 and ancillary matters, may not have any bearing at this stage, it at least suggests that the action of the authorities at all stages has not only been illegal but has lacked bona fide. It is contended that there was no reason for the Department not to refund the amount, even after the Company succeeded before the Tribunal. It is further submitted that the liability of the petitioner Company to pay an amount of more thanRs.3 crores is already discharged and even then arm twisting has continued by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Surat, which is gone into by the Tribunal and it is held that the assessment by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Surat was not legal. 4.2 On merits also, it is contended by learned advocate for the Company that the employees are paid wages in accordance with law and the liability of the Company regarding the Provident Fund is also being discharged by making appropriate contributions on the wages paid, including allowances, which are legally required to be taken into consideration as 'wages' for this purpose. It is further contended that, those allowances, which are specifically excluded by Section 2(b) of the Act, were also ordered to be taken into consideration by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Surat, that is how the Company was aggrieved and therefore the same was challenged before the Tribunal, and the said challenge is accepted by the Tribunal by holding that the order of the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Surat is illegal, in substance and in procedure, both. It is prayed on behalf of the Company that the department be directed to refund the amount, with interest, which it is sitting tight over. 5. It is prayed on behalf of the Company that the department be directed to refund the amount, with interest, which it is sitting tight over. 5. On the other hand, Mr.Niral Mehta, learned advocate for the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Surat has contended that, since the department was contemplating to challenge the order of the Tribunal dated 30.01.2013, the amount was not refunded to the Company. According to Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Surat, the said order of the Tribunal is illegal and the same needs to be interfered with by this Court. It is submitted that department has challenged the same order by filing petition being Special Civil Application No.10628 of 2013. It is contended by Mr.Mehta that the reasoning recorded by the Tribunal to interfere in the assessment order is illegal. To support his case, learned advocate Mr.Mehta has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Gujarat Cypromet Ltd. v. Assistant P. F. Commissioner reported in (2004) 3 GLR 529. 6. Per contra, learned senior advocate Mr.Patel for the Company has supported the order of the Tribunal and it is contended that the order of the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Surat, of including certain allowances in the assessment was against the settled position of law, and also against the standing instructions of the department itself, which is rightly interfered by the Tribunal. Attention of the Court is invited to the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal filed by the Company before the Tribunal, wherein, apart from other contentions, reliance was also placed on the circular of the Ministry of Labour, Government of India, dated 16.05.1964, which is referred to by the Tribunal in the impugned order. It is contended that it was the case of the Company before the Tribunal that, Field Officers of the provident fund department are harassing the assessees to such an extent that they even refuse to consider the standing instructions of the Government, and the Tribunal has, after considering the totality, held that order impugned before it was contrary to the judicial decisions and prescribed procedures and was thus legally not sustainable. It is contended that this Court may not interfere in the said order of the Tribunal. In support of his contentions, learned senior advocate Mr.Patel has relied on the following decisions. It is contended that this Court may not interfere in the said order of the Tribunal. In support of his contentions, learned senior advocate Mr.Patel has relied on the following decisions. (1) Manipal Academy of Higher Education v. Provident Fund Commissioner, (2008) 5 SCC 428 (2) Deepak Nitrite Ltd. v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and another, (Gujarat High Court) 2013 (1) GLR 352 (3) Hindustan Lever Employee's Union v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, (Bombay High Court) 1995 (71) FLR 46 7. I Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties and having gone through the material on record, more particularly, the reasonings and findings recorded by the Tribunal in para:11, 12 and 13 of the impugned order, this Court finds that the Tribunal has not committed any error in arriving at the decision that the appellant before it was entitled to relief. Para 11 and 12 read as under. "11. In the instant case, the Commissioner has accepted and adopted the report made by Enforcement Officer without due application of mind that the "Extra Allowances" and "Special Allowances" are subjected to the PF contributions. It is noted that all the allowances payable to an employee are not subject to PF contribution unless such allowances are specifically falls within the parameter prescribed under Section 2(b) of the Act. The scheme of Section 2(b) of the Act specifically excludes the HRA, Overtime, Bonus and Commission from the purview of the basic wages as any other similar allowance on the principal of ejusdem generis. The "Extra Allowance" and "Special Allowance" are paid to the employee over and above the basic wage to supplement their requirements. These allowances are not paid under an agreement between the appellant and the employees. Also, these allowances are not paid uniformly to all the employees and therefore these allowances (is) shall not constitute a part of basic wage to attract the PF contribution. 12. Another contention of the appellant is that the Commissioner had based the impugned order on the report submitted by the Enforcement Officer. A copy of the said report of Enforcement Officer was neither supply to nor shown to the appellant to contest the same by the appellant. The appellant also contended that the Commissioner has not disclosed the documents which he relied on for calculating the provident fund contributions in addition to the monthly provident fund contributions remitted by the appellant. A copy of the said report of Enforcement Officer was neither supply to nor shown to the appellant to contest the same by the appellant. The appellant also contended that the Commissioner has not disclosed the documents which he relied on for calculating the provident fund contributions in addition to the monthly provident fund contributions remitted by the appellant. In this regard, attention is drawn to the case of Small Gauges Ltd. v. V. P. Ramaiah [2008 LLR:1198] the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay held that....... In view of the above judgment, it is the legal duty of the Commissioner to supply the copy of the report and all such document on which the respondent relied on. However, while going through the impugned order it is evident that the respondent has not supplied the Enforcement Officer's report to the appellant which causes gross injustice to the appellant." 7.2 This Court does not find any infirmity in the above reasoning. Further, the ratio of the decision relied by the learned advocate for the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Surat, as referred above, is taken care of by the above reasoning of the Tribunal and therefore the said decision will not take the case of Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Surat any further, on merits. 7.3 Further, the reasoning and finding recorded in para:12 of the impugned order also needs special mention. It was agitated by the Company before the Tribunal that the officers do not provide even the material which is specifically being used against it. It was contended that not only copy of those documents was not provided, during the course of the assessment hearing also, the papers were just shown and it is recorded in the order sheet, that material is provided. This, in my view, is no compliance of principles of natural justice and giving reasonable opportunity to a party of putting his defence. The Tribunal has also found and recorded the same. 7.4 Thus, on both counts i.e. on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice, as well as on merits, the Tribunal has found that the assessment order was illegal. This court has gone through the impugned order of the Tribunal and no infirmity is found in it, which may call for even admission of the petition filed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner Surat, much less any interference by this Court. This court has gone through the impugned order of the Tribunal and no infirmity is found in it, which may call for even admission of the petition filed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner Surat, much less any interference by this Court. Thus the order of the Tribunal dated 30.01.2013 need not be interfered with and challenge to it in Special Civil Application No.10628 of 2013 needs to be rejected. Having found that no interference is required in the order of the Tribunal dated 30.01.2013, the consequential order passed by the Tribunal dated 01.04.2013 can not be interfered with. 7.5 The defence of the department in the petition filed by the Company praying for refund is that, the department had thought of challenging the order of the Tribunal dated 30.01.2013 and therefore the amount was not refunded. The said challenge is now negated, as recorded above. Under these circumstances, the petition of the Company praying for refund, being Special Civil Application No.10357 of 2013 needs to be allowed. 8. Before parting, it needs to be recorded that filing of petition by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Surat in the facts of this case is found to be lacking bona fide. The said petition was affirmed on 30.04.2013 but was not filed in the Registry of this Court until the Company filed its petition. The said petition (i.e. of the Company) was filed on 20.06.2013. Only thereafter, on 01.07.2013, the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Surat tendered his petition in the Registry of this Court. On 03.07.2013, this Court had issued Notice on the petition filed by the Company making it returnable on 10.07.2013. Only thereafter, the circulation of the petition (filed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Surat) was prayed for before the Court on 10.07.2013, for 12.07.2013, which was permitted. That is how, both the petitions are heard together. On one hand, challenging the order of the Tribunal dated 30.01.2013 was considered as sufficient ground by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Surat not to refund amount to the Company and at the same time, the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Surat was in no hurry to file and move the petition prepared by it on 30.04.2013, till the returnable date of the petition filed by the Company. This aspect needs to be gone into by the higher authorities of the department. This aspect needs to be gone into by the higher authorities of the department. At this juncture, reference can also be made to the order of this Court dated 04.07.2013 in Special Civil Application No. 7017 of 2013, wherein it was observed that, this Court has, over the last few months, come across a number of matters where, apart from merits, the manner and method in which the authorities of Surat and Baroda Regional Offices of the Employees' Provident Fund Organisation are functioning, leave much to be desired. Reference can also be made to the orders of this Court dated 06.05.2013 in Special Civil Application No. 8429 of 2013, as well as dated 22.07.2013 in Special Civil Application No.6681 of 2013. Attention of this Court is invited to the Office Order of the Employees' Provident Fund Organisation dated 27.09.2011, which is placed on record by the Company, to point out that non-availability of copies of the orders of the Tribunal or lack of communication is only an excuse put forward by the authorities. It is indicated that, by the said office order, an officer of the rank of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner is posted as Presenting Officer before the Tribunal and his functions include, liaisoning and coordination between filed officers and the panel counsel. Be that as it may, the totality of the circumstances suggests that, not filing the petition by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Surat, though affirmed, and then not moving it for hearing, was used as a tool by the same authority, to delay the refund of the Company. The public authorities are expected to be strict in recovery, but at the same time, it is also expected that, when a competent judicial forum grants some relief to an assessee, the authority complies with it within reasonable time. The totality of the facts in the present case, including the earlier round of litigation, in my judgment, unmistakably points finger at highhanded exercise of power by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Surat, which also smacks of lack of bona fide. 9. For the reasons recorded above, this Court arrives at the judgment and passes order as under. (i) The impugned order of the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal dated 30.01.2013 is found to be legal, just and proper and does not call for any interference. 9. For the reasons recorded above, this Court arrives at the judgment and passes order as under. (i) The impugned order of the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal dated 30.01.2013 is found to be legal, just and proper and does not call for any interference. The order dated 01.04.2013 passed by the Tribunal, being consequential, it cannot be interfered with. The challenge to these two orders by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Surat in Special Civil Application No.10628 of 2013 is rejected. (ii) Since the defence of the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Surat not to refund the amount to the Company, was filing of Special Civil Application No. 10628 of 2013, and the said petition having been rejected as recorded above, Special Civil Application No. 10357 of 2013 is allowed. It is directed to the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Surat, Regional Provident Fund Commissioners, Surat, as well as the Central Provident Fund Commissioner, New Delhi, to refund the amount ofRs.92,78,961/to M/s. Shiva Industrial Security Agency Pvt. Ltd. Surat, within a period of fifteen days from today. Interest at the rate of 12% per annum, from due date, to the date of actual payment, shall also be paid by the respondents to the Company. The payment of interest amount shall be made within two months from today. (iii) It is held that the filing of the petition by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Surat, being Special Civil Application No.10628 of 2013 itself was an exercise lacking bona fide to delay the refund of amount to the Company. Central Provident Fund Commissioner, New Delhi, is directed to look into the functioning of Surat Regional Office of Provident Fund Organisation and take corrective measures, if any, that he may think proper. While undertaking this exercise, the said authority shall also take into consideration the contents of, and the facts of the cases, which are referred to in para : 8 above. (iv) Special Civil Application No. 10628 of 2013 is rejected. (v) Special Civil Application No. 10357 of 2013 is allowed. Spl. C.A.No.10357 Of 2013 Allowed. Spl and C.A.No.10628 Of 2013 rejected.