JUDGMENT : Subrata Talukdar, J. 1. In this petition being WP 050 of 2014 challenge is thrown to the order impugned dated 28th January, 2014 issued by the Assistant EPF Commissioner, SRO, Port Blair. By the said impugned order the EPF Authority levied damages and penal interest of Rs. 98,112 under sections 14B and 7Q of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short the 1952 Act) against the petitioner No. 1. 2. The petitioners were further directed to pay the said damages and penal interest within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of the order failing which the petitioners were threatened with action under sections 8B to 8G of the 1952 Act. It was further ordered that in the event the remittance is not made within 15 days as stipulated above, interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum will be charged for the period of delay under section 7Q of the 1952 Act. 3. The petitioners, represented by Mrs. Anjili Nag, Ld. Counsel have argued as follows:- (a) That a proceeding was initiated under section 7A of the 1952 Act by the EPF Authority by issuing a notice dated 4th June, 2013. By the said notice it was alleged that the petitioners have failed to pay the EPF contribution in respect of their organization. (b) On 11th July, 2013 the EPF Authority issued a fresh notice directing the petitioners to remit the provident fund dues failing which proceedings will be initiated under section 7A of the 1952 Act. (c) The Notice of 11th July, 2013 was replied to by the petitioners on 17th July, 2013 by stating on affidavit that the Petitioners are not bound to pay EPF dues because the staff working under the Petitioners are receiving more than Rs. 15,000 per month towards salaries. (d) Thereafter the EPF Authority directed the Petitioners to submit documents in connection with the order dated 23rd July, 2013. Such direction was replied to by the Petitioners on 12th August, 2013 on which date the Petitioners prayed for time. On 22nd August, 2013 the EPF Commissioner (C) decided to conduct an enquiry under section 7 A of the 1952 Act and accordingly notice was sent on the said date to the Petitioners. Such direction was replied to by the Petitioners on 12th August, 2013 on which date the Petitioners prayed for time. On 22nd August, 2013 the EPF Commissioner (C) decided to conduct an enquiry under section 7 A of the 1952 Act and accordingly notice was sent on the said date to the Petitioners. (e) On 13th September, 2013 the Petitioner No. 2 informed the EPF Authorities about his unavailability on the said date due to personal reasons. On 3rd October, 2013 a show cause notice was issued by the EPF Authority asking the Petitioner No. 2 to appear on 15th November, 2013 in order to avoid penal proceedings under the 1952 Act. Thereafter, on 17th December, 2013 another notice was issued to the Petitioner No. 2 calling upon him to appear on 13th January, 2014. On receipt of such notice the petitioners appointed their Ltd. Counsel to appear before the EPF Commissioner on 13th January, 2014. (f) On 13th January, 2014 the Ld. Counsel could not appear before EPF Commissioner and on the next date fixed, that is 27th January, 2014 she submitted her vakalatnama and requested for further time to take appropriate steps. 4. Thereafter, on 28th January, 2014 the Ld. Counsel for the Petitioners submitted an application before the EPF Commissioner to furnish the details pertaining to the records required to be produced before the Authority. Such application was acknowledged as received by the Authority and the next date was fixed on 14th February, 2014. 5. On 14th February, 2014 the Ld. Counsel for the Petitioners again could not appear before the EPF Authority. On enquiry with the office of the EPF Commissioner it was found that on 16th January, 2014 and 28th January, 2014 fine was imposed on the Petitioners along with imposition of damages and penal interest. 6. Mrs. Nag primarily submits that the orders impugned dated 16th January, 2014 and 28th January, 2014 are bad on the ground of violation of the principles of natural Justice. Mrs. Nag submits that the petitioners had a right to be informed with reasons the cause for levy of the damages and penal interest and thereafter granted a hearing. 7. 6. Mrs. Nag primarily submits that the orders impugned dated 16th January, 2014 and 28th January, 2014 are bad on the ground of violation of the principles of natural Justice. Mrs. Nag submits that the petitioners had a right to be informed with reasons the cause for levy of the damages and penal interest and thereafter granted a hearing. 7. She points out that from paragraph 9 of the Affidavit-in-Opposition filed by the Respondent Authority to WP 50 of 2014 it appears that two proceedings were initiated against the petitioners - one, under section 7A of the 1952 Act and another, under sections 14B and 7Q for alleged late payment of dues for the period between 12th February, 2007 to 8th February, 2009. 8. At paragraph 9 of the said Affidavit-in-Opposition the Respondent Authority has specifically pleaded that the order impugned dated 28th January, 2014 has no connection with the earlier proceeding under section 7A of the 1952 Act. According to the Authority the said order was passed under sections 14B and 7Q for the late payment of dues for the period 12th February, 2007 to 8th February, 2009 and the order dated 28th January, 2014 does not have any link with the said proceeding. Further, according to the authority the said order passed under section 14B is connected to the late payment made by the petitioners. 9. Mrs. Nag submits that in respect of the previous proceeding the Authority has admitted that payment has been deposited by the petitioners, albeit beyond time. Further, by the admission of the Authority as reflected in the Affidavit-in-Opposition the order impugned dated 28th January, 2014 does not bear any connection to the previous proceeding. Therefore, Mrs. Nag strongly argues that in respect of a proceeding relied upon by the Authority which culminated in the imposition of damages and penal interest, the petitioners arc at least in law entitled to be informed of the reasons for imposition of such penalty and damages and be given a hearing. 10. However, Mrs. Nag submits that in the facts of the present case in spite of the Authority being in seisin of the fact that the petitioners have taken steps to appear through their Ld. Counsel and have replied to the notices sent by the Authority, it was the legal obligation of the Authority prior to imposing a penalty, to afford the petitioners an opportunity of hearing. Counsel and have replied to the notices sent by the Authority, it was the legal obligation of the Authority prior to imposing a penalty, to afford the petitioners an opportunity of hearing. Mrs. Nag asserts that in cases where the petitioners arc visited with penal consequences, it is a requirement of Law that they must be heard. 11. According to Mrs. Nag, in the event the Authority wanted to proceed against the petitioners under sections MB and 7Q of the 1952 Act, then the Authority had the opportunity to put the petitioners on notice when they appeared before it in a separate proceeding under section 7A of the 1952 Act and, had admittedly paid the dues in connection thereof, although such payment was belated. 12. Sri S. Karmakar, Ld. Counsel appearing for the Respondent PF Authority does not dispute the fact that the impugned notice levying damages and penal interest under sections MB and 7Q of the 1952 Act is distinct from the previous proceedings instituted under section 7A of the said 1952 Act. 13. He further draws the attention of this Court to page 21 of the said Affidavit-in-Opposition to make the point that the petitioners were put on notice of the proceeding under sections MB and 7Q of the 1952 Act. According to him, the postal endorsement appearing at page 21 of WP050 of 2014 clearly shows that in spite of being aware that the proceeding was pending before the Authority and the petitioners were required to be represented, the petitioners deliberately chose not to avail of such opportunity and the Authority was, therefore, compelled to issue final orders. 14. According to Sri Karmakar, the principles of natural justice are not in the nature of a straight jacket formula. Not in every case the Authority is required to bide time waiting for the petitioners to enter appearance before it. 15. In the particular facts and circumstances of this case, Sri Karmakar points out that the notice calling upon the petitioners to appear and present their defence before the Authority was served upon them and evidence of such service shall appear from page 21 of the said Affidavit-in-Opposition. 15. In the particular facts and circumstances of this case, Sri Karmakar points out that the notice calling upon the petitioners to appear and present their defence before the Authority was served upon them and evidence of such service shall appear from page 21 of the said Affidavit-in-Opposition. He accordingly submits that the petitioners, being all along in the knowledge of the fact that proceedings under the 1952 Act were continuing against them, cannot now commit a volte face and allege that they were not given the opportunity to contest the proceedings under sections MB and 7Q of the 1952 Act. 16. Pursuant to the leave granted by this Court, Sri Karmakar was granted the opportunity to file a Supplementary Affidavit vide order dated 30th June, 2014 with advance copy to Mrs. Nag. From the Supplementary Affidavit Sri Karmakar pleads that the petitioners are habitual defaulters and since the month of December 2009 the petitioners have failed to make any payment towards EPF dues. Hence the proceedings under section 7A of the 1952 Act. 17. According to Sri Karmakar, the proceedings in respect of the late payment of EPF dues was started under sections 14B and 7Q of the 1952 Act for the period ending August 2009 and the order impugned was passed on 28th January, 2014 by taking note of the fact that till such date the petitioners had not paid. He points out that no time limit is fixed for settling cases under sections 14B and 7Q of the 1952 Act. In support of his submission Sri Karmakar relies upon a judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in AIR 1995 Supreme Court page 943. 18. By way of reply Mrs. Nag submits that the order impugned dated 28th January, 2014 has been served after a lapse of nearly 5 years and the Authority was under a legal duty to give the petitioners an opportunity to present their defence. 19. Heard the parties. Considered the materials on record. 20. This Court is of the considered opinion that there is substance in the submission of Mrs. Nag that the petitioners ought to have been given an opportunity of hearing prior to levy of damages and penal interest. 19. Heard the parties. Considered the materials on record. 20. This Court is of the considered opinion that there is substance in the submission of Mrs. Nag that the petitioners ought to have been given an opportunity of hearing prior to levy of damages and penal interest. Although this Court has been made aware of the fact that several proceedings were pending against the petitioners under the 1952 Act, when the Authority decided to impose penal interest and damages after a lapse of five years in respect of alleged non-payment pertaining to the period ending August 2009, in all likelihood the order impugned dated 28 January, 2014 must have struck the petitioners like a bolt from the blue. This Court cannot also be unmindful of the fact that the petitioners were not sitting idle but taking steps to reply from time to time to the notices issued by the Authority and to cause appearance through their Ld. Counsel. It is on record that the Ld. Counsel failed to appear before the Authority on two dates and, for such omission of Ld. Counsel the petitioners ought not to have been penalised. Such view has been settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court. 21. It is also on record that on 27th January, 2014 the Ld. Counsel for the petitioners submitted her Vakalatnama and requested the Authority to grant lime for taking appropriate steps. It is further on record that on 28th January 2014 the Ld. Counsel for the petitioners requested the Authority to provide the details of the records necessary for the defence. The said application dated 28th January, 2014 was received by the Authority and the next date was fixed on 14th February, 2014. In such view of the matter the petitioners were under the lawful expectation that the Authority would consider their defence prior to passing any penal order. 22. However, to the prejudice of the petitioners the Authority, in the meantime, had already issued the penal order dated 28th January, 2014. Such a course of action adopted by the Authority, in the considered view of this Court, must fail on the ground of violation of the Principles of Natural Justice. 23. This Court also notices the fact that the Authority has admitted that the proceedings under section 7A and under sections 14B and 7Q against the petitioners are different. Such a course of action adopted by the Authority, in the considered view of this Court, must fail on the ground of violation of the Principles of Natural Justice. 23. This Court also notices the fact that the Authority has admitted that the proceedings under section 7A and under sections 14B and 7Q against the petitioners are different. Therefore, although the petitioners have participated in the proceedings under section 7A of the 1952 Act the same would not imply ipso facto that they are also required to be aware of the mind of the Authority with regard to an intention to impose damages and penal interest after a lapse of 5 years. In such view of the matter the Authority was required to act fairly and reasonably by granting the petitioners an opportunity to disclose their defence upon adequate prior information to them of the clarifications needed by the Authority. 24. Mrs. Nag has further pointed out that the delivery of the notice as sought to be shown to this Court from page 21 of the Affidavit-in-Opposition filed by Sri Karmakar is denied inasmuch as her specific instruction is that no such notice was delivered to the petitioners. 25. In the backdrop of the above discussion this Court directs that the Respondent Authority shall grant the petitioners an opportunity of hearing on a date and time to be fixed by the Authority upon prior intimation to both the petitioners and their Ld. Counsel. The Authority shall also disclose to the petitioners the nature of the proceedings pending against them in respect of which the hearing is summoned. 26. On receipt of such advance intimation the petitioners shall positively cooperate with the Authority by appearing on the date and time fixed and producing their relevant records along with the submissions to be adopted by them by way of defence. 27. The Authority shall be thereafter free to pass final orders on the merits on the proceedings within a period of 4 weeks from date of hearing and communicate the same to the petitioners as well as their Ld.. Counsel within the period of one week thereafter. The Authority shall not be influenced by any observation made by this Court in this order and shall be free to act in accordance with Law. 28. For the reasons aforesaid the orders impugned dated 6.01.2014 and 02.01.2014 are set aside. 29. Counsel within the period of one week thereafter. The Authority shall not be influenced by any observation made by this Court in this order and shall be free to act in accordance with Law. 28. For the reasons aforesaid the orders impugned dated 6.01.2014 and 02.01.2014 are set aside. 29. WP No. 050 of 2014 is accordingly disposed of. 30. There will be, however, no order as to costs. 31. Urgent xerox certified copy, if applied for to be handed over to the parties at their own costs.