JUDGMENT : PARESH UPADHYAY, J. 1. Heard Mr. Deepak R. Dave learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. learned advocate for the respondent Authorities. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the proceedings initiated against him by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Sub-Regional Office, Vapi (Surat) under Section-7A of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. Serious grievance is made by the learned advocate for the petitioner about the manner and method in which the proceedings are being undertaken by the respondent Authorities. Further, number of prayers are made in this petition. 3. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties and having gone through the material on record, this Court finds that the ends of justice would meet if the present petition is considered only to the limited extent as to whether the petitioner company is given reasonable opportunity of putting its case before the Authorities or not. 4. Learned advocate for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court to the order sheet recorded by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner dated 28.05.2013 (Page-71), which reads as under:- “Today Shri Mr. Milind Prabhu and Mr. Martin Golla appear to represent the establishment. Shri V.G. Salve, APFC is present on behalf of the department and files his submission in response to the submission dated 08.04.2013 of the establishment, which is taken on record as part of the proceeding and handed over to the establishment. Shri V.G. Salve submits detailed calculation in respect of the employees of the contractor along with their name and wages paid by the establishment. Labour Enforcement officer, Silvassa has reported that the said establishment has not submitted annual returns under the contract Labour (R&A) Act, 1970 and rules made thereunder. The contractors summoned during the inquiry have not appeared. Notice before arrest be issued against them. The proceeding stands adjourned to 17.06.2013 at 11.00 A.M. (P.K. Tiwari) Regional PF Commissioner-II/OIC Sub-Regional Office, Vapi.” 5. On 17.06.2013, the proceedings as reflected on the order sheet (Page-89) reads as under:- “Today Mr. Milind Prabhu and Mr. Martin Golla appear on behalf of establishment and file a written submission which is taken on record as part of the proceedings in reply to the deposition submitted by Shri V.G. Salve, APFC in the proceeding dated 28.05.2013. On 17.06.2013, the proceedings as reflected on the order sheet (Page-89) reads as under:- “Today Mr. Milind Prabhu and Mr. Martin Golla appear on behalf of establishment and file a written submission which is taken on record as part of the proceedings in reply to the deposition submitted by Shri V.G. Salve, APFC in the proceeding dated 28.05.2013. As the establishment has already submitted its counter reply to the deposition of department dated 11.03.2013 and further submission dated 28.05.2013, I proceed to conclude the proceedings. Order is reserved and will be issued separately. (P.K. Tiwari) Regional PF Commissioner-II/OIC Sub-Regional Office, Vapi.” 6. It is pointed out that on 17.06.2013 itself, the petitioner company had given written representation to the respondent Authorities, which inter-alia requested, as contained in Para-12 and 13, as under:- “12. The establishment humbly submits that, you are requested to follow the due procedure and provide reasonable opportunities and natural justice to us along with permission to cross-examine all the witnesses who presented the deposition. In the present case such opportunity of cross examining the witness will prove the high handiness of the officers. Only after providing such opportunities in accordance to the law of the land you are requested to formulate and express your views on the submissions before passing the final order against the establishment. 13. Lastly, we in totality disagree with statements provided by the officer mentioning the incorrect, arbitrary and vague names and inexplicably imaginary salary for the simple reason that those contractors had not rendered any service to the Company for the period that has been wrongly mentioned (or knowingly to inflate proposed claim).” 7. Learned advocate for the petitioner has contended that not providing opportunity to cross-examine the author of the report, which is treated to be deposition of the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner in assessment proceedings, is illegal and on this count alone, the proceedings dated 17.06.2013 needs to be quashed and set aside. It is contended that though the petitioner has prayed for larger reliefs, if this petition is considered to the limited extent as agitated above, the petitioner will be satisfied, keeping all the rights and contentions open. Learned advocate for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the decisions of Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in the case of Food Corporation of India vs. Provident Fund Commissioner and Others, (1990) 1 SCC 68 . Learned advocate for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the decisions of Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India in the case of Food Corporation of India vs. Provident Fund Commissioner and Others, (1990) 1 SCC 68 . Reliance is also placed on the decisions of the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) in Writ Petition No. 2332 of 2007 dated 05.09.2007, Pramod Anandrao Shinde vs. Assistant Provident Funds Commissioner and of the Kerala High Court in Writ Petition (C) No. 5857 of 2011 dated 10.08.2011, S.A. Cashew Factory vs. Employees Provident Fund and Others. 8. On the other hand, learned advocate for the respondent-authorities has vehemently contended that the petitioner-company is delaying the proceedings and is not co-operating and no indulgence be shown by this Court. It is also contended that there is no provision in the statute to grant permission to cross-examine the competent Authority and therefore petition be not entertained even to that extent. 9. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties and having gone through the material on record and without going into the merits, this Court finds that ends of justice would meet and the petition can be disposed of by examining only one contention as to whether the petitioner has right to cross-examine the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, whose report is treated to be deposition by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner and based on which the order under Section-7A of the Act is proposed to be passed against the petitioner. 10.1 The Bombay High Court in the case of Pramod Anandrao Shinde (supra), after following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Food Cooperation of India (supra) has inter-alia observed that “The Enforcement Officer having carried out the inspection on the said Establishment and having recorded certain observations in his report, his version mentioned in the report is liable to be tested by cross-examination.” The Court further observed that “I do not think that the petitioner can be deprived of the opportunity of cross-examining the Enforcement Officer on the report made by him.” 10.2 Further, the observations of the Kerala High Court in the case of S.A. Cashew Factory (supra) in Paras-5 and 6 are as under:- “5. From the observations made by the second respondent himself in Ext. From the observations made by the second respondent himself in Ext. P2 order rejecting the application for review and by the Appellate Tribunal in paragraph 12 of Ext. P4 order, it is evident that a copy of the Enforcement Officer's report, which was the basis for initiating the Section 7A enquiry, which led to Ext. P1 order being passed was not furnished to the petitioner. The material on record also disclose that the petitioner was also not afforded an opportunity to cross-examine the Enforcement Officer after furnishing him a copy of the report. The Apex Court has in Natwar Singh vs. Director of Enforcement and Another, (2010) 13 SCC 255 , held that the right to fair hearing is a guaranteed right and that nothing should be used against a person which has not been brought to his notice. It was held that the concept of fairness requires the adjudicating authority to furnish those documents upon which reliance has been placed and that it is only in cases where disclosure of evidential material might inflict serious harm on the person directly concerned or other persons or where disclosure would be in breach of confidence or might be injurious to public interest that an exception to the said rule can be taken. 6. In the instant case, it is evident from the orders under challenge that the second respondent accepted the report submitted by the Enforcement Officer without furnishing a copy thereof to the petitioner or affording him an opportunity to cross-examine the Enforcement Officer. In the light of the principles laid down by the Apex Court in Natwar Singh vs. Director of Enforcement and Another (supra) it cannot be said that a fair procedure was followed by the second respondent before passing Exts.P1 and P2 orders. The Appellate Tribunal also erred in holding that no prejudice will be caused to the party for the reason that he did not ask for a copy of the report when the report contained adverse findings and a copy thereof had not been furnished to him. I am therefore satisfied that the petitioner was not afforded a fair hearing before Ext. P1 order was passed. Though a review was attempted, even at the stage of the review the second respondent did not furnish a copy of the report to the petitioner. I am therefore satisfied that the petitioner was not afforded a fair hearing before Ext. P1 order was passed. Though a review was attempted, even at the stage of the review the second respondent did not furnish a copy of the report to the petitioner. I am therefore, of the opinion that the impugned orders are liable to be set aside.” 11. I see no reason not to follow the above quoted view of at least two High Courts, which has binding force on the present respondent Authorities. So far as those States are concerned, the Act of 1952 being the Central Act, its interpretation and implementation cannot be different in different States. 12. For the reasons recorded above, this petition is partly allowed. It is held that the petitioner is entitled to have cross examination of Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, whose report is treated to be deposition in the proceedings under Section-7A of the Act. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Sub Regional Office, Vapi (Surat) is directed to hear the petitioner-company afresh and it is further directed that petitioner-company shall be given opportunity of cross examining the officers whose reports are taken on record, as reflected in the order-sheet of the proceedings before the respondent Authorities dated 28.05.2013, as elaborated in order-sheet dated 1706.2013. For this purpose, the proceedings recorded on 17.06.2013 are quashed and set aside. It is observed that this Court has not expressed any opinion, so far the contentions on merits are concerned and parties are at liberty to agitate it at appropriate stage, in accordance with law. It is clarified that disposal of this petition shall not come in the way of the petitioner-company to agitate the issues which are not gone into by this Court, before appropriate Authority and/or forum in accordance with law. Rule made absolute to the above extent. No order as to costs.