JUDGMENT : K. Harilal, J. The petitioner is the Proprietor of 'Arabian Cashew Exports', Kilikollur, Kollam, a covered establishment under the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act (for short 'the Act'). According to the petitioner, he is properly paying monthly contribution under the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act and is submitting returns in Form 12-A, without fail. But, to the surprise of the petitioner, the 2nd respondent has embarked an enquiry under Section 7A of the Act, for a period from 08/2007 to 05/2008 and issued notice to the petitioner. He was directed to produce all the concerned records during the said period and he has produced all the documents. But, the 2nd respondent was reluctant to accept the documents produced by the petitioner. Further, it is alleged that the 3rd respondent, who filed the report to the 2nd respondent, was keeping animosity against the petitioner on the belief that the petitioner had sent certain anonymous complaint against him to the superior authorities and in retaliation of the said vengeance, he has submitted a false report to the 2nd respondent and the 2nd respondent has commenced enquiry on the basis of that report. It is also alleged that the respondents finalised the proceedings without issuing a copy of the report submitted by the 3rd respondent to the 2nd respondent and no opportunity was given to him to cross-examine the 3rd respondent on the basis of the report submitted by him to the 2nd respondent. However, the respondents arbitrarily finalised the proceedings under Section 7A of the Act and assessed dues for temporary employees for the period from 08/2007 to 05/2008, by Ext.P2 order. Challenging Ext.P2, though the petitioner had preferred an appeal as ATA No. 141(7) of 2009 before the 1st respondent, the 1st respondent also, without considering the valid contentions raised by the petitioner, passed Ext.P5 order, affirming the assessment made by the 2nd respondent in Ext.P2 order. Thus, the legality and propriety of the findings in Exts.P2 and P5 orders are under challenge in this writ petition. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner in extenso and the learned counsel for the petitioner advanced arguments raising two points. Firstly, according to the petitioner, a copy of the report said to have been filed by the 3rd respondent to the 2nd respondent was not served on the petitioner. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner in extenso and the learned counsel for the petitioner advanced arguments raising two points. Firstly, according to the petitioner, a copy of the report said to have been filed by the 3rd respondent to the 2nd respondent was not served on the petitioner. Secondly, no opportunity had been given to the petitioner to cross-examine the 3rd respondent on the basis of the report submitted by him to the 2nd respondent. The learned counsel further cited the decision laid down by this Court in W.P.(c) No. 10109/11 and submits that the said decision was laid down on a similar set of facts. In view of the submissions made at the Bar, the point to be considered is, whether there is any procedural irregularity or denial of natural justice to the petitioner in the impugned orders under challenge. 3. Going by Ext.P2 order, it is seen that the 2nd respondent has specifically made an observation that a copy of the report allegedly submitted by the 3rd respondent to the 2nd respondent was served to the petitioner. I do not find any reason to disbelieve the said observation in the absence of any material contrary to the same. As regards the second point that no opportunity had been given to the petitioner to cross-examine the 3rd respondent on the basis of the report allegedly sent by him to the 2nd respondent, there is no observation or finding as to whether any opportunity had been given to the petitioner to cross examine the 3rd respondent on the basis of the report allegedly sent by him to the 2nd respondent. Indisputably, the proceedings were initiated against the petitioner on the basis of the report allegedly filed by the 3rd respondent to the 2nd respondent and it is his finding in the report that the petitioner had employed temporary workers without bringing them under the provisions of the said Act and Scheme. This Court had an opportunity to consider the similar situation in W.P.(c) No. 10109/11; wherein this Court relying on the decision reported in Natwar Singh v. 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 also held that the concept of fairness requires the adjudicating authority to furnish the documents and to give an opportunity to cross-examine the officer who prepared the report and submitted the same before the higher authorities. 4. As I have held earlier, going by Ext.P2, it is not discernible whether an opportunity had been given to the petitioner to cross-examine the 3rd respondent, who allegedly submitted the report before the 2nd respondent. No document has been produced before this Court, in this writ petition, to show that an opportunity had been given to the petitioner to cross examine the 3rd respondent, who has allegedly submitted the report to the 2nd respondent. In my view also, denial of an opportunity to cross-examine the officer, who prepared the report, is fatal and the proceedings to that extent is vitiated by denial of natural justice. 5. In the above view of the matter, Exts.P2 and P5 orders will stand quashed and the matter will stand remitted back to the 2nd respondent to pass orders afresh after affording an opportunity to cross-examine the 3rd respondent, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 6. This writ petition is disposed of accordingly.