JUDGMENT : S.N. Prasad, J. In these batch cases there are two sets of writ petitions. First set of writ petitions have been filed by the establishments, these are W.P.(C) Nos.14712 of 2005, 14713 of 2005, 14714 of 2005, 14715 of 2005 and 14716 of 2005 wherein the order has been passed by the authority U/s.7-A and 7-B thereafter the petitioners have filed appeal before the learned Appellate Tribunal and they are seeking a direction from this court for disbursement of amount as per the direction passed by the learned Tribunal in the order under its appellate jurisdiction U/s.7-I of the Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provision Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the At, 1952). Whereas W.P.(C) Nos. 20362 of 2010, 63 of 2011, 64 of 2011, 65 of 2011, 128 of 2011, 129 of 2011, 130 of 2011, 131 of 2011 and 132 of 2011 wherein the petitioners after the order having been passed by the authority u/s.7-A of the Act, 1952 have preferred an appeal before the learned EPF Appellate Tribunal under its jurisdiction as per the power conferred U/s.7-I of the Act, 1952 and in these writ petitions they are seeking direction from this court directing the provident Fund Authorities to forthwith comply the order passed by the Tribunal by making disbursement of the amount lying with them. In these batch of cases since similar prayer is involved, i.e. with respect to a direction upon the Provident Fund Authorities to disburse the amount in their favour in pursuance to the order passed by the tribunal, as such these writ petitions are being referred herein after as first set having been filed by the establishments. The other set of writ petitions which have been filed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, those are W.P.(C) Nos. The other set of writ petitions which have been filed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, those are W.P.(C) Nos. 5579, 5580, 5581, 5582 and 5583 of 2005, 2034 of 2010, 2072 of 2010, 2073 of 2010, 2074 of 2010, 2075 of 2010, 2076 of 2010, 2077 of 2010, 2078 of 2010, 2079 of 2010 and 2080 of 2010 wherein the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner has challenged the order passed by the learned EPF Tribunal whereby and where under the orders passed U/s.7-A and 7-B of the Act, 1952 have been set aside with a direction to the Provident Fund Authority to refund the amount which has been realized from the establishments who are the petitioners in the first set of writ petitions, as such these batch of cases are referred hereinafter as second set of writ petitions being filed by the Provident Fund Authority. Since issue involved in all these writ petitions are similar, hence this court has directed to hear the matter analogous by giving analogous hearing and accordingly these cases have been heard by this court at length. The first set of writ petitions is for a direction for refund of the amount from the Provident Fund Authorities while the second set of writ petitions is for quashing of the order passed by the EPF Appellate Tribunal and as such the outcome of the second set of writ petitions will directly govern the result of the first set of writ petitions and hence the second set of writ petitions is being decided first. 2. The brief facts, in narrow compass, in all these writ petitions are that the establishment who are petitioners in the first set of writ petitions (hereinafter referred to as the establishment) who are the bidi suppliers deal with manufacturing process of bidi by using work of the bidi Home Workers and after coming into effect of the judgment in the case of P.M. Patel Vrs. Union of India which has been decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court vide order dtd.25.9.1985, AIR 1985 SC 447, the P.F. Authorities have initiated proceeding against the establishment U/s.7-A of the Act, 1952 since they have failed to submit required Provident Fund, Employees’ Pension Scheme Contribution, Administrative Charges, Employees’ Deposit Linked Insurance Contribution and Employees’ Deposit Linked Insurance Administrative Charges due from the month 1/95 to 12/97 in accordance with the provisions of Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and the Scheme framed thereunder and have decided to determine the amount due, the employer was summoned vide letter dtd.5.2.1998 to appear before the authority to represent his case, however, several adjournments were granted to the establishment but none represented them. Even after communication of the notices through special messenger on 9.7.1998 the establishment declined to appear in the proceeding, as such the authority has posted the case for ex-parte hearing on the basis of the Enforcement Officer’s report dtd.21.1.1998 and thereafter the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, in exercise of power conferred U/s.7-A of the Act, 1952 has determined the charges for month of 1/95 to 12/97 (balance dues) and directed that the proceeding for recovery of amount in accordance with law be initiated. The assessment of dues has been made on the basis of 12-A register which is an excise register. The assessment of dues has been made on the basis of 12-A register which is an excise register. The petitioners of the writ petitions being W.P.(C) Nos.14712 of 2005, 14713 of 2005, 14714 of 2005, 14715 of 2005 and 14716 of 2005 have approached before the Member of Parliament and on whose behest the Central Provident Fund Commissioner has issued letter on 15.10.1998, directed the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner to provide an opportunity to the establishment so that they may be able to give actual names and details of the actual number of employees who have worked and accordingly on the basis of the direction passed by the Central Provident Fund Commissioner, proceeding U/s.7-B of the Act, 1952 has been initiated but none turned up along with details of the actual names and numbers of the employees and as such the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, of his own, has taken initiative to call upon the workmen by making wide publication in the newspaper and also convened meeting in the locality, but nobody had turned up and hence the Reviewing Authority, on the basis of the relevant records produced before him like the attendance register, the salary/wages payment register(pertaining to both the principal employer and the contractors), the RG-12 Registeers, Returns submitted to the Labour/factory Department and Central Excise Department, Cash Book, Balance Sheet and Profit and Loss Account, the list of contractors, the Agreements of the contractors, the records relating to supply of raw materials and receipt of finished products from the contractors, payment registers to the contractors etc. had been directed to be produced by the principal employer but they avoided to produce all records in support of their argument, hence the Reviewing Authority, on the basis of RG-12 A register, which is Excise Register containing the details of manufactured goods, has assessed the P.F. dues on the differential amount of wages shown in 12-A register, monthly returns and wages calculated at the rate of Rs.25/- or Rs.27/- per thousand, and accordingly proceeding has been concluded by affirming the order passed U/s.7-A with an observation that the establishment being an employer since taking the shelter of non-identification of workers only to evade his past liability and not disclosing the names of beneficiaries voluntarily, hence the assessment which has been made for the period from 1/95 to 12/97 has been affirmed. It has been observed that the beneficiaries who have been extended P.F. benefits by the employers during the period beyond 12/97 they are the same workers who have worked even for the period prior to 12/97 but only in order to evade past liability the establishment is not disclosing their names. The establishment against whom an order has been passed U/s.7-A and 7-B of the Act had approached the learned Tribunal in exercise of power conferred U/s.7-I of the Act, 1952 and the Tribunal by virtue of order has set aside the order passed by the authority either U/s.7-A or 7-B of the Act relying upon the judgment rendered in the case of Food Corporation of India Vrs. Provident Fund Commissioner, (1990) 1 SCC 68 with a direction to the P.F. Authorities to refund the amount which has been deposited by the appellant within 15 days along with interest @ 12% per annum. 4. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, the petitioners in second set of writ petitions have filed these writ petitions challenging the order passed by the Tribunal on the following grounds:- (i) The order passed U/s.7-A or 7-B of the Act, 1952 by the authority is on the basis of the fact that the establishment has come under the purview of the Act, 1952 after the judgment rendered in the case of P.M. Patel Vrs. Union of India (supra), hence the very Act is applicable to the establishment and as such only thing which is to be done by the authority is to determine the amount which was to be deposited in the P.F. account by way of a statutory deduction as per requirement of the Act, 1952. However, the establishments have deposited the amount but the P.F. authority after ascertaining the fact that there is shortfall of deposit which has come to their notice that the total production of bidi has been assessed from the 12-A register, which is an Excise Register, which is much more, hence proceeding U/s.7-A has been initiated for determining the balance dues and in course thereof the authorities under Sec.7-A has decided the balance dues on the basis of the relevant records. (ii) Some of the establishments had filed review cases u/s.7-B of the Act, 1952 and that was on the basis of a direction passed by the Central Provident Fund Commissioner, New Delhi, who has directed the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Bhubaneswar to provide an opportunity to the establishments in bringing the details of employees with their actual numbers and thereafter pass fresh order, in view thereof the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner has initiated fresh proceeding U/s.7-B, issued summons to the establishment, but the establishment has not appeared along with details of the employees who have worked and when they had not turned up, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner has initiated action on its own, made wide paper publication, convened local meeting but no employee had turned up, accordingly the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner has assessed the amount on the basis of 12-A Register which contains details of production and the number of subscribers and it came to the notice of the authority that there is short fall of deposit of amount, hence the assessment has been made with a direction to make payment of balance dues. (iii) The learned Tribunal while passing the order has relied upon the judgment rendered in the case of Food Corporation of India Vrs. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (supra) but the facts of Food Corporation of India’s case is entirely different to that of the facts of this case as because in the case of Food Corporation of India the authority in exercise of power conferred U/s.7-A has not summoned either the employer or the contractor for identification of the workers even though power has been conferred upon the authority of a Civil Court while exercising power U/s.7-A of the Act 1952, hence the Hon’ble Apex Court was of the view that the authority while exercising the power conferred U/s.7-A of the Act, 1952 has not resorted to the power conferred to it by not summoning the employers or the contractors, hence the judgment rendered in the case of Food Corporation of India is not at all applicable with the facts of this case. (iv) Furthermore, the Hon’ble Apex Court while deciding the issue related to Food Corporation of India has remanded the matter before the authority for passing fresh order, but here in this case the order passed U/s.7-A and 7-B has been set aside with a direction to refund the amount which has been deposited by the establishment, hence the Tribunal has not gone into the very object and scope of the Act. (v) The Tribunal has not gone into the fact that for the latches committed on the part of the establishment or if the establishment has not followed the statutory provision by keeping the record, the establishment cannot be given any benefit of their own default or latches, otherwise it will give premium to the illegal doers and the very object of the Act would be frustrated. (vi) The statute provides duty to the employers and the contractors under the provisions of the Act or Scheme 1952 but the employers have not followed the statutory provision and now they want to take advantage. (vii) The case of the establishment before the Central Provident Fund Commissioner was that they may be given an opportunity to give details of the employees with their numbers and on that ground the Central Provident Fund Commissioner, even though he was not an authority for passing order U/s.7-A, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, in all fairness has initiated proceeding U/s.7-B, but the establishment have deviated from their own submission and ground which they have taken before the Central Provident Fund Commissioner by not producing relevant records regarding details of employees and its numbers and they had not produced relevant records in this regard and now they want to take advantage of not identifying the workers. (viii) The establishments are the manufacturers and suppliers of bidi and as such it is their duty to keep all the records regarding details of workers by giving full description of the same before the authority concerned by way of return as provided under para-36-A of the Scheme, 1952, but they have failed in doing so and as such the establishments have failed in discharging their statutory duty and hence for their latches and for not following the statutory provision they cannot be given any advantage. So far as identification of the workers is concerned, it has been stated that the Reviewing Authority has given specific observation in the order passed U/s.7-B of the Act, 1952 that all the employees who have worked after 12/97, they are the same workers who have worked even prior to the month of December, 1997, as such there is no difficulty in identifying them, this observation has been given by the authority since the authority was in seisin of the matter with respect to review of other cases, but the learned Tribunal has not considered this aspect of the matter and has set aside the order passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner either U/s.7-A or 7-B of the Act, 1952 which is nothing but the very purpose of the object of the Act has been sought to be frustrated. 5. Per Contra the learned Sr. Counsel representing the petitioners – establishments, in both the cases wherein the orders U/s.7-A or 7-B are under challenge, have submitted that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Tribunal for the reasons that the very purpose of the object of the Act would said to be achieved only if the money which has been deposited would reach to the real employees who have actually worked for the establishment and this could only be possible if there is proper identification of the employees who have actually worked for the establishment, but in spite of serious efforts having been taken in this regard by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner by making wide publication in the newspaper or even by convening local meeting to ascertain the names of the employees, but nobody had turned up, hence no identification was done, and if any amount will be deducted or had been deposited, it cannot reach to the real beneficiaries, then the purpose of the Act cannot be said to be achieved rather it can only be said to be achieved if there would be proper identification of the employees who have actually worked for the establishments. It has been contended that there is no dispute that after the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of P.M. Patel Vrs. It has been contended that there is no dispute that after the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of P.M. Patel Vrs. Union of India, the bidi manufacturers have come within the purview of the Act, 1952, but it is the accountability of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner to identify the workmen before compelling them to make statutory contribution in the statutory P.F. Account of the concerned employee in which the authorities have failed, hence the learned Tribunal after taking into consideration this aspect of the matter has set aside the order. It has further been contended that the matter has rightly not been remanded before the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner for hearing afresh because it would be a futile exercise since even in spite of serious efforts having been taken in this respect by the P.F. Authorities, the identification of the workmen could not have been made. Learned Sr. Counsels representing the First set of writ petitions, wherein the order passed U/s.7-A has been challenged before the Tribunal, have submitted that the authority while assessing the balance dues in exercise of power U/s.7-A of the Act, 1952 has only relied upon 12-A Register which is an Excise Register, but from perusal of the form of 12-A register it is not referred therein the number of employees who have worked, hence reliance placed by the authority in 12-A register cannot be said to be proper application of mind by the authorities concerned. It has been contended that the petitioners – establishments have filed writ petitions for issuance of direction upon the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner to refund the amount and when notice has been issued by this court, after substantial delay, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner has filed writ petitions challenging the order passed by the learned Tribunal U/s.7-I of the Act 1952. 6. Learned counsels for the parties have been heard in detail, they have also filed their written notes of argument along with judgments, the same has been perused by this court. The judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Management, M/S. M.S. Nally Bharat Engineering Co. Ltd. Vrs. State of Bihar, 1990 (60) FLR 785. 6. Learned counsels for the parties have been heard in detail, they have also filed their written notes of argument along with judgments, the same has been perused by this court. The judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Management, M/S. M.S. Nally Bharat Engineering Co. Ltd. Vrs. State of Bihar, 1990 (60) FLR 785. The same is not relevant to the facts and issue of the instant case for the reason that the same is with respect to fairness of proceeding with elimination of element of arbitrariness and as such it has been held that the State Functionary must act fairly and reasonably. There is no dispute about the settled proposition but on comparison of the facts of this case this judgment is not at all applicable. The judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Majestic Trading House and Another Vrs. Union of India and Another, 1990 (60) FLR 793. The facts related in that case is applicability of the Act but here the applicability of the Act has not been disputed and as such the same is not applicable. The judgment of this court in the case of Chittaranjan Sahoo Vrs. Collector, Khurda and Others, 2014(1) O.J.R. (535). The same has been relied in order to show that the authorities is supposed to act strictly in pursuance to the provision as provided under the statute but the same is not the issue involved in this case. Likewise the judgment rendered in the case of State of Rajasthan Vrs. Ganeshi Lal, 2007 AIR SCW 7810 is not applicable for the reason that in the said judgment the issue was regarding binding precedent of Article 141 of the Constitution of India. So far as other unreported judgments annexed to the written notes of argument passed by this court in O.J.C. Nos.835, 840, 841 and 842 of 2002 are entirely on different issue. 7. After hearing learned counsels for the parties the following issues fell for consideration, to be answered by this Court:- (i) Whether the order passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner U/s.7(A) or 7(B) is proper ? (ii) Whether the order passed by the Employees’ Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal is correct ? (iii) What steps should be taken by the Regional Provident Fund Authority for implementation of order in order to achieve the object of the Act ? (ii) Whether the order passed by the Employees’ Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal is correct ? (iii) What steps should be taken by the Regional Provident Fund Authority for implementation of order in order to achieve the object of the Act ? ISSUE No.(i) In order to appreciate the rival submissions, it is necessary to see the relevant provisions along with scope of the Act, 1952. Since the Act 1952 is a beneficial legislation which was passed with an object of making some provisions for the future of the industrial worker after his retirement or for his dependents in the case of his early death. The Parliamentarian, after considering various financial and administrative difficulties in old and survival pension’s schemes and gratuity schemes, agreed to introduce the institution of contributory fund schemes in which, both the worker and the employer would contribute. Provident fund scheme was considered as a means to encourage the stabilization of a steady labour force in industrial centre. The Parliamentarians were well aware of the fact that with industrial growth, although, the big employers had introduced the scheme of provident fund for the welfare of their workers, but all these schemes until then were private and voluntary and the workers of the small employers remain deprived of the benefits which were provided by big employers with an object to provide for compulsory establishment of provident fund by every employer in the industrial concerns for the betterment of the employee, the EPF Act was enacted. Section 1 of the Act, 1952 reads as under:- “1. Short title, extent and application.- (1) This Act may be called the Employees? Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. (2) It extends to the whole of India except the State of Jammu and Kashmir. (3) Subject to the provisions contained in section 16, it applies – (a) to every establishment which is a factory engaged in any industry specified in Schedule I and in which twenty or more persons are employed and (b) to any other establishment employing twenty or more persons or class of such establishments which the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify, in this behalf: Provided that the Central Government may, after giving not less than two months? notice of its intention so to do, by notification in the Official Gazette, apply the provisions of this Act to any establishment employing such number of persons less than twenty as may be specified in the notification. (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section 3 of this section or-sub-section 1 of section16, where it appears to the Central Provident Fund Commissioner, whether on an application made to him in this behalf or otherwise, that the employer and the majority of employees in relation to any establishment have agreed that the provisions of this Act should be made applicable to the establishment, he may, by notification in the Official Gazette, apply the provisions of this Act to that establishment on and from the date of such agreement or from any subsequent date specified in such agreement. (5) An establishment to which this Act applies shall continue to be governed by this Act notwithstanding that the number of persons employed therein at any time falls below twenty.” Section 2(e) contains the meaning of ‘employer’ and Sec.2(f) contains the meaning of ‘employee’ which are being reproduced herein below:- 2(e) “employer” means- (i) in relation to an establishment which is a factory, the owner or occupier of the factory, including the agent of such owner or occupier, the legal representative of a deceased owner or occupier and, where a person has been named as a manager of the factory under clause f of sub-section 1 of section 7 of the Factories Act, 1948 (63 of 1948), the person so named; and (ii) in relation to any other establishment, the person who, or the authority which, has the ultimate control over the affairs of the establishment, and where the said affairs are entrusted to a manager, managing director or managing agent, such manager, managing director or managing agent; (f) “employee” means any person who is employed for wages in any kind of work, manual or otherwise, in or in connection with the work of an establishment, and who gets, his wages directly or indirectly from the employer, and includes any person,- (i) employed by or through a contractor in or in connection with the work of the establishment; (ii) engaged as an apprentice, not being an apprentice engaged under the Apprentices Act, 1961 (52 of 1961), or under the standing orders of the establishment;]” Section 5 contains provision conferring power to the Central Government to frame Scheme to be called the Employees’ Provident Fund Scheme for the establishment of provident funds under this Act for employees or for any class of employees and specify the establishment or class of establishments to which the said Scheme shall apply which is being reproduced herein below:- 5. Employees’ Provident Funds Scheme. – (1) The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, frame a scheme to be called the Employees? Employees’ Provident Funds Scheme. – (1) The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, frame a scheme to be called the Employees? Provident Fund Scheme for the establishment of provident funds under this Act for employees or for any class of employees and specify the establishments or class of establishments to which the said Scheme shall apply and there shall be established, as soon as may be after the framing of the Scheme, a Fund in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the Scheme. (1A) The Fund shall vest in, and be administered by, the Central Board constituted under section 5A. (1B) Subject to the provisions of this Act, a Scheme framed under sub-section 1 may provide for all or any of the matters specified in Schedule II. (2) A Scheme framed under sub-section 1 may provide that any of its provisions shall take effect either prospectively or retrospectively on such date as may be specified in this behalf in the Scheme.” Section 6 contains the provision of contribution and matters which may be provided for the Scheme which reads as hereunder:- 6. Contributions and matters which may be provided for in Schemes. – The contribution which shall be paid by the employer to the Fund shall be ten percent. Contributions and matters which may be provided for in Schemes. – The contribution which shall be paid by the employer to the Fund shall be ten percent. Of the basic wages, dearness allowance and retaining allowance, if any, for the time being payable to each of the employees whether employed by him directly or by or through a contractor, and the employees’ contribution shall be equal to the contribution payable by the employer in respect of him and may, if any employee so desires, be an amount exceeding ten percent of his basic wages, dearness allowance and retaining allowance if any, subject to the condition that the employer shall not be under an obligation to pay any contribution over and above his contribution payable under this section: Provided that in its application to any establishment or class of establishments which the Central Government, after making such inquiry as it deems fit, may, by notification in the Official Gazette specify, this section shall be subject to the modification that for the words “ten percent”, at both the places where they occur, the words “12 percent” shall be substituted: Provided further that where the amount of any contribution payable under this Act involves a fraction of a rupee, the Scheme may provide for rounding off of such fraction to the nearest rupee, half of a rupee, or quarter of a rupee. Explanation I – For the purposes of this section dearness allowance shall be deemed to include also the cash value of any food concession allowed to the employee. Explanation II. – For the purposes of this section, “retaining allowance” means allowance payable for the time being to an employee of any factory or other establishment during any period in which the establishment is not working, for retaining his services.” Section 7A contains the provision for determination of money due from the employees which is being reproduced herein below:- [7A. Determination of moneys due from employers. Determination of moneys due from employers. – [(1) The Central Provident Fund Commissioner, any Additional Central Provident Fund Commissioner, any Deputy Provident Fund Commissioner, any Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, or any Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner may, by order,- (a) In a case where a dispute arises regarding the applicability of this Act to an establishment, decide such dispute; and (b) Determine the amount due from any employer under any provision of this Act, the Scheme or the [Pension] Scheme or the Insurance Scheme, as the case may be, And for any of the aforesaid purposes may conduct such inquiry as he may deem necessary.] (2) The officer conducting the inquiry under sub-section (1) shall, for the purposes of such inquiry, have the same powers as are vested in a court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), for trying a suit in respect of the following matters, namely:- (a) enforcing the attendance of any person or examining him on oath; (b) requiring the discovery and production of documents; (c) receiving evidence on affidavit; (d) issuing commissions for the examination of witnesses, and any such inquiry shall be deemed to be a judicial proceeding within the meaning of sections 193 and 228, and for the purpose of section 196, of the Indian Penal Code (45 if 1860). (3) No order shall be made under sub-section (1), unless [the employer concerned] is given a reasonable opportunity of representing his case. (3) No order shall be made under sub-section (1), unless [the employer concerned] is given a reasonable opportunity of representing his case. [(3A) Where the employer, employee or any other person required to attend the inquiry under sub-section (1) fails to attend such inquiry without assigning any valid reason or fails to produce any document or to file any report or return when called upon to do so, the officer conducting the inquiry may decide the applicability of the Act or determine the amount due from any employer, as the case may be, on the basis of the evidence adduced during such inquiry and other documents available on record.] [(4) Where an order under sub-section (1) is passed against an employer ex-parte, he may, within three months from the date of communication of such order, apply to the officer for setting aside such order and if he satisfies the officer that the show-cause notice was not duly served or that he was prevented by any sufficient cause from appearing when the inquiry was held, the officer shall make an order setting asked his earlier order and shall appoint a date of proceeding with the inquiry: Provided that no such order shall be set aside merely on the ground that there has been an irregularity in the service of the show-cause notice if the officer is satisfied that the employer had notice of the date of hearing and had sufficient time to appear before the officer. Explanation.- Where an appeal has been preferred under this Act against an order passed ex parte and such appeal has been disposed of otherwise than on the ground that the appellant has withdrawn the appeal, no application shall lie under this sub-section for setting aside the ex parte order. (5) No order passed under this section shall be set aside on any application under sub-section (4) unless notice thereof has been served on the opposite party.]]” From perusal of the provision as contained in Sec.7-A it is evident that the same has been provided in order to assess the amount of statutory contribution. It is further evident that applicability of the Act to any class of employees is not determined or decided by any proceeding U/s.7-A of the Act but under the provisions of the Act itself. When the Act became applicable to the employees in question, the liability arises. It is further evident that applicability of the Act to any class of employees is not determined or decided by any proceeding U/s.7-A of the Act but under the provisions of the Act itself. When the Act became applicable to the employees in question, the liability arises. Hence what is contained U/s.7-A of the Act is only determination of quantification of the same. This interpretation has been given by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M/s. S.K. Nasiruddin Beedi Merchant Ltd. Vrs. Central P.F. Commissioner, AIR 2001 Supreme Court 850 wherein their Lordships have been pleased to hold at paragraph 6 as under:- 6. So far as the second contention is concerned, the argument of the learned counsel proceeds on the basis that the liability was not clear in view of the various circumstances and, therefore, deduction could not be made from the wages of the employees and that circumstance leads to anomalous position making the employer to pay the employees contribution towards provident fund without the facility of deduction from their wages. We do not think that this argument is well founded. The applicability of the Act to any class of employees is not determined or decided by any proceeding under Section 7-A of the Act but under the provisions of the Act itself. When the Act became applicable to the employees in question, the liability arises. What is done under Section 7-A of the Act is only determination or quantification of the same. Therefore, the contention put forth on behalf of the appellant that their liability was attracted only from the date of determination of the matter under Section 7-A of the Act does not stand to reason.” After coming into effect of the judgment rendered in the case of M/s. P.M. Patel & Sons Vrs. Union of India, AIR 1987 Supreme Court 447 since the Home Bidi Workers have been brought under the purview of the Act, 1952, as such the Act became applicable for them since they have been brought under the definition of ‘employees’ as per the definition of the ‘employees’ given U/s.2(f) of the Act, 1952. After the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of M/s. S.K. Nasiruddin Beedi Merchant Ltd. Vrs. Central P.F. Commissioner (supra) there is no dispute about the fact that U/s.7-A of the Act only determination of quantification of the liability is to be done. After the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of M/s. S.K. Nasiruddin Beedi Merchant Ltd. Vrs. Central P.F. Commissioner (supra) there is no dispute about the fact that U/s.7-A of the Act only determination of quantification of the liability is to be done. It is further evident from Sec.7-A(3A) that the employer, employee or any other person required to attend the inquiry under sub-section (1) fails to attend such inquiry without assigning any valid reason or fails to produce any document or to file any report or return when called upon to do so, the officer conducting the inquiry may decide the applicability of the Act or determine the amount due from any employer, as the case may be, on the basis of the evidence adduced during such inquiry and other documents available on record. Section 7-B provides power of Review while Section 7-I provides power of Appeal. Section 8 provides power of mode of recovery of money. Section 14 contains the provision of penalties and the same is relevant in this case and as such the same is being referred herein below:- 14. Penalties. (1) Whoever, for the purpose of avoiding any payment to be made by himself under this Act, the Scheme, the Pension Scheme or the Insurance Scheme or of enabling any other person to avoid such payment, knowingly makes or causes to be made any false statement or false representation shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine of five thousand rupees, or with both. (1A) An employer who contravenes, or makes default in complying with, the provisions of section 6 or clause a of sub-section 3 of section 17 in so far as it relates to the payment of inspection charges, or paragraph 38 of the Scheme in so far as it relates to the payment of administrative charges, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years but – (a) which shall not be less than one year and a fine of ten thousand rupees in case of default in payment of the employees’ contribution which has been deducted by the employer from the employees’ wages; (b) which shall not be less than six months and a fine of five thousand rupees, in any other case: Provided that the Court may, for any adequate and special reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a lesser term. (1B) An employer who contravenes, or makes default in complying with, the provisions of section 6C, or clause a of sub-section 3A of section 17 in so far as it relates to the payment of inspection charges, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year but which shall not be less than six months and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to five thousand rupees: Provided that the Court may, for any adequate and special reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a lesser term. (2) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Scheme, the Pension Scheme or the Insurance Scheme may provide that any person who contravenes, or makes default in complying with, any of the provisions thereof shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to four thousand rupees, or with both. (2A) Whoever contravenes or makes default in complying with any provision of this Act or of any condition subject to which exemption was granted under section 17 shall, if no other penalty is elsewhere provided by or under this Act for such contravention or noncompliance, be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to six months, but which shall not be less than one month, and shall also be liable to fine which may extend to five thousand rupees.” Thus it is evident that the authorities of Provident Fund have been conferred with the power to inflict penalties in case of contravention or making default in complying with the provisions of Sec.6 or clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 17 in so far as it relates to the payment of inspection charges or paragraph 38 of the Scheme in so far as it relates to the payment of administrative charges. In exercise of power conferred u/s.5 of the Act, 1952 certain provisions have been made by the Central Government under the Employees’ Provident Fund Scheme, 1952. Para 29 of the Employees’ Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 deals with the contribution and para 30 deals with the payment of contribution. Para 30 will be necessary to refer in the context of this case, hence the same is being quoted herein below:- 30. Payment of contributions.- (1) The employer shall, in the first instance, pay both the contribution payable by himself (in this Scheme referred to as the employer’s contribution) and also, on behalf of the member employed by him directly or by or through a contractor, the contribution payable by such member (in this Scheme referred to as the member’s contribution). (2) In respect of employees employed by or through a contractor, the contractor shall recover the contribution payable by such employee (in this Scheme referred to as the member’s contribution) and shall pay to the principal employer the amount of member’s contribution so deducted www.epfindia.gov.in 43 together with an equal amount of contribution (in this Scheme referred to as the employer’s contribution) and also administrative charges. (3) It shall be the responsibility of the principal employer to pay both the contribution payable by himself in respect of the employees directly employed by him and also in respect of the employees employed by or through a contractor and also administrative charges. (3) It shall be the responsibility of the principal employer to pay both the contribution payable by himself in respect of the employees directly employed by him and also in respect of the employees employed by or through a contractor and also administrative charges. Explanation: For the purposes of this paragraph the expression “administrative charges” means such percentage of the pay (basic wages, dearness allowance, retaining allowance, if any, and cash value of food concessions admissible thereon) for the time being payable to the employees other than an excluded employee, and in respect of which Provident Fund Contribution are payable as the Central Government may, in consultation with the Central Board and having regard to the resources of the Fund for meeting its normal administrative expenses, fix.” Para 36 deals with dues of employers, hence necessary for consideration of issue involved in this case, hence referred herein below:- 36. Duties of employers – (1) Every employer shall send to the Commissioner, within fifteen days of the commencement of this Scheme, a consolidated return in such form as the Commissioner may specify of the employees required or entitled to become members of the Fund showing the [basic wage, retaining allowance (if any) and dearness allowance including the cash value of any food concession] paid to each of such employees: Provided that if there is no employee who is required or entitled to become a member of the Fund, the employer shall send a ‘NIL’ return. (2) Every employer shall send to the Commissioner within fifteen days of the close of each month a return- (a) in Form 5, of the employees qualifying to become members of the Fund for the first time during the preceding month together with the declarations in Form 2 furnished by such qualifying employees, and (b) [in such form as the Commissioner may specify], of the employees leaving service of the employer during the preceding month: Provided that if there is no employee qualifying to become a member of the Fund for the first time or there is no employee leaving service of the employer during the preceding month, the employer shall send a ‘NIL’ return. [Provided further that a copy of the forms as mentioned in clause (a) and (b) above shall be provided by the employer to concerned employees immediately after joining the service or at the time of leaving the service, as the case may be.] (4) Every employer shall maintain an inspection note book in such form as the Commissioner may specify, for an Inspector to record his observation on his visit to the establishment. (5) Every employer shall maintain such accounts in relation to the amounts contributed to the Fund by him and by his employees as the Central Board from time to time, direct, and it shall be the duty of every employer to assist the Central Board in making such payments from the Fund to his employees as are sanctioned by or under the authority of the Central Board. (6) Notwithstanding anything hereinbefore contained in this paragraph, the Central Board may issue such directions to employers generally as it may consider necessary or proper for the purpose of implementing the Scheme, and it shall be the duty of every employer to carry out such directions. (7) Every employer shall send to the Commissioner such returns in electronic format also, in such form and manner as may be specified by the Commissioner.]” Para 36-B which contains the duties of contractors is also relevant, hence the same is quoted herein below:- 36-B. Duties of contractors- Every contractor shall, within seven days of the close of every month, submit to the principal employer a statement showing the recoveries of contributions in respect of employees employed by or through him and shall also furnish to him such information as the principal employer is required to furnish under the provisions of the Scheme to the Commissioner.” Para 37 contains the power of the Commissioner to allot account numbers, as such the same is also being referred herein below:- 37. Allotment of Account Numbers- On receipt of the information referred to in paragraphs 33, 34 and 36, the Commissioner shall promptly allot an Account Number to each employee qualifying to become a member and shall communicate the Account Number to the member through the employer.” Para 76 contains the provision for punishment for failure to pay contribution, hence the same is also being referred herein below:- 76. Punishment for failure to pay contribution, etc.- If any person – (a) deducts or attempts to deduct from the wages or other remuneration of a member the whole or any part of the employer’s contribution, or (b) fails or refuses to submit any return, statement or other document required by this Scheme or submits a false return, statement or other document, or makes a false declaration, or (c) obstructs any Inspector or other official appointed under the Act or this Scheme in the discharge of his duties or fails to produce any record for inspection by such Inspector or other official, or (d) is guilty of contravention of or non-compliance with any other requirement of this Scheme, he shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to [one year, or with fine which may extend to four thousand rupees], or with both.” 8. After close scrutiny of the provisions of law as quoted herein above it is evident that the employers have been conferred with the duties who have mandatorily been made liable to send to the Commissioner within fifteen days of the commencement of this Scheme, a consolidated return in such form as the Commissioner may specify, of the employees required or entitled to become members of the Fund showing the basic wage, retaining allowance (if any) and dearness allowance including cash value of any food concession paid to each of such employee. Provided that if there is no employee who is required or entitled to become a member of the Fund, the employer shall send a ‘Nil’ return. It is further apparent that every employer shall carry out the direction as would be evident from para-36-B of the Scheme, 1952. Thus it is the duty of the employer to refer all the details before the Commissioner. Likewise the contractors have also been assigned with duties to submit to the principal employer statement showing the recoveries of contributions in respect of employees employed by or through him and shall also furnish to him such information as the principal employer is required to furnish under the provisions of the Scheme to the Commissioner. Likewise the contractors have also been assigned with duties to submit to the principal employer statement showing the recoveries of contributions in respect of employees employed by or through him and shall also furnish to him such information as the principal employer is required to furnish under the provisions of the Scheme to the Commissioner. The Parliamentarians at the time of framing of the Act, 1952 were conscious of the fact that the employer or the contractors may conceal some facts from the P.F. Authorities in order to evade the contribution or frustrate the purpose of the Act, hence very consciously provisions has been made under para 36 and 36-B of the Scheme 1952 casting some statutory duties upon the employer or the contractors regarding details of each employees who have to be paid their wages along with other perks, hence it is the mandatory duty of the employers to furnish all details before the Commissioner. The legal position after the judgment rendered in the case of P.M. Patel and Sons (supra) is that the Home Bidi Workers have been brought under the purview of the Act, 1952 and as such the employers, i.e. the establishments who are the petitioners in the First set of writ petitions herein were statutorily duty bound to discharge their duties as per the duties provided to them under the provision of para 36 of the Scheme, 1952, likewise the Contractors, as per the power conferred under para 36-B of the Scheme, 1952. 9. Now, so far as the case in hand is concerned, the petitioners of the First set of writ petitions are the manufacturers of bidi. It is the admitted situation in this case that the petitioner- establishment had engaged Home made Bidi Workers through contractors. Further admitted position is that the petitioner – establishment has deposited statutory amount by way of statutory contribution, as such there is no dispute about the fact that the Home Bidi Workers have been engaged in manufacturing process of bidi. There is no dispute about the fact that bidi is an item which comes under the purview of Excise Duty and as such the requirement for every manufacturer is to prepare register known as 12-A register containing the details of manufacturing done which is for the purpose of making payment of excise duty. There is no dispute about the fact that bidi is an item which comes under the purview of Excise Duty and as such the requirement for every manufacturer is to prepare register known as 12-A register containing the details of manufacturing done which is for the purpose of making payment of excise duty. The Regional Provident Fund Authority when came to know about the fact that there is much difference in the statutory contribution under the P.F. Account of the employees who have rendered their work in the manufacturing process with the details of the 12-A register, he has directed to conduct an enquiry in this regard and on the basis of the inspection report the assessment has been done by the authority for the period from 1/95 to 12/97 after initiating proceeding in this regard, due notices have been issued to the establishments – petitioners but in spite of several opportunities having been given by the Regional Provident Fund Authorities they have not chosen to appear and as such the authority, having no option has posted the hearing of the proceeding as ex-parte hearing on the basis of the Enforcement Officer’s Report dtd.21.1.1998 and the authority has came to a finding that charges for the month of 1/95 to 12/97 (balance dues) has been assessed to the tune of Rs.18,43,419/-. Some of the petitioners – establishments had approached to the Member of Parliament regarding the assessment made U/s.7-A by the Regional Provident Fund Authority and on the direction of the Member of Parliament the Central Provident Fund Commissioner has taken up the matter and directed the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner as under:- On behalf of the establishment, the employers should give the actual names and details of the actual number of employees, who have worked or working. Based on that, the correct assessment should be made. It appears to be a reasonable point and accordingly on these lines, officer in charge, Rourkela may be advised on the issues and decision taken earlier, copy of the Regional P.F. Commissioner, Orissa. One opportunity may be given and within one month if the details are not received, then further action can be taken by the officer in charge. It appears to be a reasonable point and accordingly on these lines, officer in charge, Rourkela may be advised on the issues and decision taken earlier, copy of the Regional P.F. Commissioner, Orissa. One opportunity may be given and within one month if the details are not received, then further action can be taken by the officer in charge. This intention is not to stay the proceedings and action.” It is necessary to take notes of the fact at this juncture that the Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 is a Central Legislation conferring power upon the Central Provident Fund Commissioner, Additional Central Provident Fund Commissioner, Deputy Provident Fund Commissioner, Regional Provident Fund Commissioner or any Asst. Provident Fund Commissioner to determine the money due from the employer. Thus the authority whose designation has been mentioned U/s.7-A has been conferred with quasi judicial power, simultaneously the power of review has also been conferred U/s.7-B. It is settled that an order can only be reviewed by the authority who has passed the original order. Here in this case when an order has been passed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner in exercise of power conferred U/s.7-A of the Act, 1952, the aggrieved party has been conferred with the rights to file Review U/s.7-B, but some of the petitioners – establishments instead of approaching the Reviewing Authority u/s.7-B of the Act have taken shelter of the political leaders, who interfered in the matter and even directed the Central Provident Fund Commissioner, the Central Provident Fund Commissioner in complete violation of the statutory provision who has not only interfered with the matter rather directed the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner to pass fresh order. From perusal of the order passed by the Central Provident Fund Commissioner which has been quoted in the order passed U/s.7-A of the Act, 1952 it is well been referred that the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner has not been directed to pass an order U/s.7-B rather it is the direction upon the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner to pass a fresh order. However, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner has initiated fresh proceeding on the direction of the Central Provident Fund Commissioner in the shape of Review in exercise of power conferred U/s.7-B of the Act, 1952. However, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner has initiated fresh proceeding on the direction of the Central Provident Fund Commissioner in the shape of Review in exercise of power conferred U/s.7-B of the Act, 1952. It further transpires from the direction passed by the Central Provident Fund Commissioner that the sole grievance raised by the petitioner – establishment of First set of writ petitions was that they have not been given opportunity to disclose the actual names and details of the number of employees and on the basis of such submission the Central Provident Fund Commissioner had passed order directing the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner to give one opportunity to the petitioner – establishment to come out with the details of the workers along with numbers and if the details are not furnished then further action can be taken by the officer in charge. In pursuance to the direction passed by the Central Provident Fund Commissioner, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner has initiated proceeding U/s.7-B but the petitioners – establishments had not appeared before the authority even on several occasions, having no option the Regional Provident Fund Authority instead of taking any decision within one week, as per direction passed by the Central Provident Fund Commissioner, has resorted to publication in the local newspaper asking for details of employees and numbers from other sources and thereafter so many dates have been fixed, ultimately on 10.1.2001 the learned Advocate for the establishment appeared and sought for adjournment, filed affidavit of four contractors along with list of 100 workers engaged by them with month wise bidi rolled, wages paid and P.F. contribution involved. They also produced names of three contractors, namely, Sri Lenka Ch. Patel, Sri Nirmal Ch. Barick and Sri Jayananda Barick for their examination to adduce evidence and produced records for identification of workers in terms of summons issued by the 7A authorities to these contractors. All the three contractors have submitted that they are not possessing any record regarding names of workers engaged by them, bidi rolled and wages paid, etc. They have submitted names of some workers, number of bidi rolled by them, wages paid to them on their memory only. They have admitted that the workers are the residents of their village and nearby villages only. They further admitted that records could not be preserved and destroyed for the case period. They have submitted names of some workers, number of bidi rolled by them, wages paid to them on their memory only. They have admitted that the workers are the residents of their village and nearby villages only. They further admitted that records could not be preserved and destroyed for the case period. The establishment has not produced any document on any date of hearing, however, the employers were categorically directed to produce the relevant records like the attendance register, salary/wages payment register, the RG-12-A register, returns submitted to the Labour/Factory Department and Central Excise Department, Cash Book, Balance Sheet and Profit and Loss account, the list of contractors, the records relating to supply of raw materials to and receipt of finished products from the contractors, payment register to the contractors, etc. But they evade to produce all records in support of their argument and as such the statement of 100 workers showing number of bidi rolled and wages paid and P.F. Contribution involved amount to Rs.55,683/- only against Rs.18,43,419/- has been said to be incurred and hence the said plea was rejected. The Regional provident Fund Commissioner has passed order on the basis of the fact that the establishment – petitioner had not disputed the production of bidi shown in RG-12 register. The employer had also admitted the fact that he had paid wages to the bidi rollers as per the rate prescribed by the State Government, i.e. @ Rs.25/- or Rs.27/- per thousand, as the case may be. Hence contention raised by the establishments – petitioners that reliance placed by the authority upon Register 12(A) is totally non-application of mind, but in my considered view this argument is not worth to be accepted for the reason that the authority had allowed several opportunity to the establishments to bring on record other relevant documents in order to justify as to why Register 12(A) be not treated to be valid evidence to reassess the quantum, but they have failed in doing so, as such the authority has not hesitated in relying upon Register 12(A), which contains the details of total production, in order to arrive at the conclusion. Moreover, if there is wide difference in total production as per detail contained in Register 12(A) the authority has rightly reached to the conclusion as because in absence of worker there cannot be production to such a large extent. Moreover, if there is wide difference in total production as per detail contained in Register 12(A) the authority has rightly reached to the conclusion as because in absence of worker there cannot be production to such a large extent. It is settled that non-cooperation of the establishments to deny the liability, the authority has no option but to proceed to fix the quantum by adopting best judgment assessment. In similar situation with regard to determination of contribution payable U/s.45-A of the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Employees’ State Insurance Corporation Vrs. C.C. Santhakumar, (2007) 1 SCC 584 held that on non-cooperation judgment on best assessment can be passed. Hence applying the principle of best judgment assessment in case of non-cooperation by the establishment, in my considered view, the authority has not committed any error in passing the orders U/s.7(A) or 7(B) of the Act, 1952. Hence the authority has assessed the P.F. dues on the differential amount shown in 12-A register, monthly P.R. returns and wages calculated. The authority while passing the order U/s.7(A) of 7(B) has relied upon the provision as contained in Sec.7A(3A) which contains a provision that in case the employer, employee or any other person fails to attain such inquiry without assigning any valid reason or fails to produce any document, the authority have power to pass order on the basis of evidence adduced during such inquiry and other document available on record and accordingly relying upon RG-12-A register the authorities have passed the order putting liability of Rs.18,43,419/- for the period 1/95 to 12/97. Hence in my considered view there is no infirmity in the order passed by the authority. Issue No.(i) is answered accordingly. Issue No.(ii) The petitioners – establishments had approached before the learned Tribunal in exercise of power conferred U/s.7-I and raised the point that without proper identification of the workers the assessment made by the authority U/s.7-A or 7-B is without any reasoning because the contribution cannot reach to the beneficiaries so long as their identification is not being done, thus the same stand has been taken by the petitioners – establishments which they had taken before the Central Provident Fund Commissioner regarding identification of the workers. The appellate tribunal placing reliance upon the judgment rendered in the case of Food Corporation of India Vrs. The appellate tribunal placing reliance upon the judgment rendered in the case of Food Corporation of India Vrs. Provident Fund Commissioner, (1990) 1 SCC 68 has set aside the order passed U/s.7-A or 7-B with a direction to the authority to refund the amount already deposited by the appellant. The order passed by the Tribunal, in my considered view is not sustainable in the eye of law for the following reasons:- (i) The learned Tribunal while passing order has not taken into consideration the fact that the statute provides certain duties upon the employers as per the provision made under para 36 of the Scheme, 1952. Likewise duties have been casted upon the contractors under para 36-B of the Scheme, 1952. As per the duties of the employers the employers have been assigned with statutory duty to send to the Commissioner the details of numbers of the Fund showing the basic wage, retaining allowance and dearness allowance paid to each of such employer, meaning thereby the details of each of such employee who have been engaged in the manufacturing process is to be submitted before the Commissioner. The proviso contains provision that if there is no employee, then the employer shall sent a ‘Nil’ return, meaning thereby the employer has to submit return if the employees are working, the details of employees with their basic wage and other allowance and if the employees are not working then ‘Nil’ return, hence it is the statutory duty to produce regarding the details of the employees to the Commissioner. Likewise the Contractors have also been provided with statutory duty to submit to the principal employer a statement showing the recoveries of contributions in respect of employees employed by or through him and shall also furnish to him such information as the principal employer is required to furnish under the provisions of the Scheme to the Commissioner. Thus both the employers and contractors have been provided with the statutory duty to apprise with all the details to the Commissioner. All along case of the petitioners – establishments herein is that without any identification of the workmen the statutory amount cannot be deducted and it should not have been deducted. Thus both the employers and contractors have been provided with the statutory duty to apprise with all the details to the Commissioner. All along case of the petitioners – establishments herein is that without any identification of the workmen the statutory amount cannot be deducted and it should not have been deducted. But now the question is that when the employers are engaging employees in the manufacturing process, then it is incumbent on their part to furnish all details before the Commissioner and that is the statutory duty casted upon the employer. If the workers are being engaged through contractors, then the contractors have also statutorily been provided with the duty to furnish the details of the employees whom they have engaged, thus the intent of the Act is that the employer or the contractors must be fair with the statutory authority by furnishing all details. Admittedly in this case the petitioners – establishments had deposited statutory amount, but after scrutiny when it has been found by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner that some balance due is still to be deposited by way of contribution since the quantum of production is much more than the amount which has been deposited by way of statutory contribution under the respective P.F. account which has been gathered from Register 12-A which is an Excise Register meant for the purpose of payment of excise duty on finished product. When the assessment has been made U/s.7-A some of the petitioners – establishments had approached to the Member of Parliament who has instructed / directed Central Provident Fund Commissioner completely mis-utilizing his official position to take proper action in this regard and the then Central Provident Fund Commissioner has also accepted the direction of the Member of Parliament which was admittedly without any jurisdiction, directed without any authority of law, to the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner to pass fresh order after giving one opportunity to the petitioners – establishments to provide details of names of employees with their numbers but after the matter has been initiated afresh by the Regional P.F. Commissioner none represented the petitioner – establishment on several dates but however after some days some of the contractors had appeared and given numbers of 100 workers only but that has been disbelieved by the Regional P.F. Commissioner since it was contrary to the details of production as per the detail contained in register 12-A, hence the balance amount has been assessed for the period from 1/95 to 12/97. The learned Tribunal has not taken note of the fact that the petitioner has not taken any efforts to produce the details of numbers of employees rather they have said before the authorities that they are not possessing any relevant records and it has been destroyed, hence the petitioners – establishments only in order to evade the statutory contribution has intentionally not produced the records although they are the custodians of the records and furthermore they are required to furnish the details of the employees before the Commissioner, hence the petitioners – establishments failed in discharging their duties, i.e. furnishing the details of numbers of the employees and records have been shown to be destroyed. (ii) The learned Tribunal placing reliance upon the judgment rendered in the case of Food Corporation of India Vrs. (ii) The learned Tribunal placing reliance upon the judgment rendered in the case of Food Corporation of India Vrs. Provident Fund Commissioner, (1990) 1 SCC 68 has passed the order by setting aside the order passed U/s.7-A or 7-B of the Act but in my considered view the judgment rendered in case of Food Corporation of India is not at all applicable to the facts of this case for the reason that in the case of Food Corporation of India the fact was that the authority while passing order U/s.7-A has not taken any steps for securing the attendance and without resorting to the power conferred U/s.7-A for summoning the parties by exercising the power vested under Code of Civil Procedure, had passed the order, hence the appeal was allowed and the order of the Commissioner was reviewed, but simultaneously the matter had been remitted to the Commissioner to dispose it of afresh and in accordance with law. But here the facts of this case is totally different which is for the reason that in these cases wherein the order passed U/s.7-A or 7-B the steps have been taken for securing the appearance of the petitioner but the petitioners establishments had not turned up, hence the proceeding has been fixed as ex-parte proceeding and order has been passed so far as it relates to an order U/s.7-A of the Act, 1952. But so far as the order passed U/s.7-B of the Act, 1952 the concerned petitioners – establishments instead of having their own submission to provide an opportunity so that in the meanwhile they will produce the relevant documents regarding details of numbers of employees, they had not appeared on several dates and when appeared, but without any relevant records, hence it cannot be said that the Regional P.F. Commissioner while passing the order conferred U/s.7-A or 7-B of the Act 1952 has not exercised the power vested under these sections, rather, it is the petitioners-establishments who have not cooperated with the authority and hence having no option the authority has passed order taking recourse of Section 7-A(3) i.e. on the basis of material available on the record. In view of this reason, in my considered view, the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Appex Court in the case of Food Corporation of India Vrs. In view of this reason, in my considered view, the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Appex Court in the case of Food Corporation of India Vrs. Provident Fund Commissioner, (1990) 1 SCC 68 is not at all applicable to the facts of this case but learned Tribunal has not appreciated this aspect of the matter. (iii) It is settled principle of law that if in the statute duty has been casted upon any citizen or officer or person, it is their duty to follow the same and if they have not followed the statutory duty they cannot be allowed to take any advantage of their mistake. Exactly here the petitioner-establishment has not followed their statutory duty as conferred under Para-36 of the Scheme or the contractors under Para-36-B of the Scheme 1952 and now they want to take advantage that without any identification of the workmen there cannot be any statutory deduction. Now the questions arises that who is the person who is authorized to give details of the employees or their identification, certainly it is the employers and the contractors, but main responsibility is upon the employer who has got direct nexus with the Regional Provident Authority so far as the scope and purpose of the Scheme is concerned and it is the employer who is supposed to deposit statutory amount in the respective PF Account of the concerned employee, but what has been gathered by this Court from the perusal of the records and material available therein that the petitioners-establishments have failed in discharging their statutory duty. It is worth to mention here that even the concerned authority have not taken any efforts as provided under the Scheme, 1952 for implementation of the object of the Act by resorting to the provision of para 76 of the Scheme, 1952. Now the question arises that if the petitioner-establishment has not discharged their statutory duty, can they be given any advantage of the same? The answer will be absolutely in negative, this is for the reason that any body who has been given any duty under the statute and if they are not following, no advantage should be given to such person otherwise it will not only create anarchy in the society but also encourage the illegal doers and ultimately it will result in frustrating the entire statute, its purpose and scope. In this connection the authorities of Hon’ble Supreme Court needs to be referred with respect to the fact as to whether the wrong doer will be allowed to take any advantage of his own wrong, reference in this regard needs to be made to a judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ashok Kapil Vrs. Sana Ullah (dead) and Others, (1996) 6 SCC 342 wherein their Lordships have dealt with the maxim “Nullus Commodum Capere Postest de injuria sua propria” (No man can take advantage of his own wrong) and laying down the proposition the Hon’ble Apex Court at paragraph 7 held hereunder:- 7. If the crucial date is the date of allotment order, the structure was not a building as defined in the Act. But can the respondent be assisted by a court of law to take advantage of the mischief committed by him? The maxim “Nullus commodum capere potest de injuria sua propria” (No man can take advantage of his own wrong) is one of the salient tenets of equity. Hence, in the normal course, the respondent cannot secure the assistance of a court of law for enjoying the fruit of his own wrong.” Yet in another judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Eureka Forbes Limited Vrs. Allahabad Bank and Others, (2010) 6 SCC 193 their Lordships have discussed the maxim “Nullus commodum capere potest de injuria sua propria” (No man can take advantage of his own wrong). The relevant paragraph of the said judgment is paragraph 66 which is quoted herein below:- 66. The maxim nullus commodum capere potest de injuria sua propria has a clear mandate of law that, a person who by manipulation of a process frustrates the legal rights of others, should not be permitted to take advantage of his wrong or manipulations……” In the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Indrajit Singh Grewal Vrs. State of Punjab and Another, (2011) 12 SCC 588 wherein dealing with the action of the party who has committed fraud, Hon’ble Apex Court has been pleased to hold that no one should have an advantage from his own wrong. The relevant part of the said proposition is find mentioned at paragraph 22 of the judgment which is being reproduced herein below:- 22. The relevant part of the said proposition is find mentioned at paragraph 22 of the judgment which is being reproduced herein below:- 22. …..A person alleging his own infamy cannot be heard at any forum as explained by the legal maxim allegans suam turpitudinem non est audiendus. No one should have an advantage from his own wrong (commondum ex injuria sua nemo habere debet)……..” Thus there is no dispute about the fact that if any person who is statutorily duty bound to follow the statutory provision and commits default in following the statute, he cannot claim any advantage of his own wrong. Testing this case on the principle of this proposition it is evident that the Bidi Suppliers being manufacturers/employers are statutorily duty bound to submit the details by way of return as per the provision made in paragraph 36 of the Scheme 1952 but they have not submitted details before the authorities and when called upon in course of fresh hearing they even have not assisted the authority properly rather they have taken specific stand that the records have been destroyed and on this ground they want to take advantage of their own default. It is settled that if anything has been provided in the statute it ought to have been followed in its strict sense and there cannot be any deviation, but what has been gathered by this Court while dealing with the matter is that the petitioners-establishments have tried to suppress material facts from the authority, tried to take political advantage in order to get rid of their statutory obligation which cannot be allowed for the reasons that no person can be given any privilege by not following the statutory obligation or statutory duty casted upon him. (iv) Learned Tribunal without appreciating all these aspects of the matter, in a very mechanical manner, has set aside the order passed U/s.7-A and 7-B of the Act, that too without taking into consideration the observation made by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner in the reviewing order having been passed U/s.7-B of the Act, 1952 wherein it has been observed as follows:- Under the above circumstances I do not hesitate to conclude that the employer is taking the shelter of non-identification of workers only to evade his past liability and not disclosing the names of beneficiaries voluntarily. I do not hesitate to conclude also that the beneficiaries for the period in question i.e.1/95 to 12/97 for which assessment has been made amounting to Rs.18,43,419/- are none but the beneficiaries who have been extended PF benefits by the employers during the period beyond 12/97 because it has been established by the examination of contractors of this establishment as well as the contractors in other Bidi cases (as I am conducting the review case for other nine Bidi establishments of the same place i.e. Sambalpur on similar issue) that bidi workers belong to village or nearby village of the contractor and hence there would be no difficulty to identify them. However, later on the employer has already been identified them and extended P.F. benefits but not disclosing the facts that these workers were actually working from 1/95 onwards also only to escape past liability because it has been found that home workers in bidi industry are stable labour force and not frequent.” In view of the foregoing reasons the order passed by the learned Tribunal is not sustainable and accordingly same are quashed. Issue No.(ii) is answered accordingly. In the result the first set of writ petitions, i.e. W.P.(C) Nos.14712 of 2005, 14713 of 2005, 14714 of 2005, 14715 of 2005, 14716 of 2005, W.P.(C) Nos. 20362 of 2010, 63 of 2011, 64 of 2011, 65 of 2011, 128 of 2011, 129 of 2011, 130 of 2011, 131 of 2011 and 132 of 2011 stand dismissed and the second set of writ petitions, i.e. W.P.(C) Nos.5579, 5580, 5581, 5582 and 5583 of 2005, 2034 of 2010, 2072 of 2010, 2073 of 2010, 2074 of 2010, 2075 of 2010, 2076 of 2010, 2077 of 2010, 2078 of 2010, 2079 of 2010 and 2080 of 2010 stand allowed. Issue No.(iii) Now the question arises that how the money will reach to the real beneficiaries. Issue No.(iii) Now the question arises that how the money will reach to the real beneficiaries. It has been stated by the learned senior counsel representing the RPF Commissioner that the amount already deposited has been kept in suspense account and Regional Provident Fund Authority will identify the workmen as per the observation made in the order passed under section 7(B) of the Act wherein it has been stated that:- Beneficiaries for the period in question i.e.1/95 to 12/97 for which assessment has been made amounting to Rs.18,43,419/- are none but the beneficiaries who have been extended PF benefits by the employers during the period beyond 12/97 because it has been established by the examination of contractors of this establishment as well as the contractors in other Bidi cases (as I am conducting the review case for other nine Bidi establishments of the same place i.e. Sambalpur on similar issue) that bidi workers belong to village or nearby village of the contractor and hence there would be no difficulty to identify them. However, later on the employer has already been identified them and extended P.F. benefits but not disclosing the facts that these workers were actually working from 1/95 onwards also only to escape past liability” In view of such observation and keeping the fact into consideration the scope and purpose of the Act and the observation of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner as quoted herein above, I hereby direct the Regional Provident Fund Authority to call upon all the Bidi workers on whose favour contribution has been deposited and the amount to be deposited by the employers in the light of orders passed under 7(A) or 7(B) of the Act, identify the workers properly by all means and extend benefit in their favour. The authority will act on the basis of the observation made in the order passed under Sec.7-B of the Act, 1952 for proper identification to the effect that beneficiaries for the period in question i.e.1/95 to 12/97 for which assessment has been made amounting to Rs.18,43,419/- are none but the beneficiaries who have been extended PF benefits by the employers during the period beyond 12/97 because it has been established by the examination of contractors of this establishment as well as the contractors in other Bidi cases (as I am conducting the review case for other nine Bidi establishments of the same place i.e. Sambalpur on similar issue) that bidi workers belong to village or nearby village of the contractor and hence there would be no difficulty to identify them. However, later on the employer has already been identified them and extended P.F. benefits but not disclosing the facts that these workers were actually working from 1/95 onwards also only to escape past liability. If the beneficiaries have died, their legal heirs shall be called upon and on proper verification the amount shall be disbursed in their favour. The petitioners-establishments as well as contractors are directed to cooperate the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner. In the light of the authoritative dictum and provisions of law, discussed herein above and the judgments, I further direct the authority competent under the statute to take all possible steps and apply all possible means, as prescribed under the statute to ensure compliance of the provisions of the statute, in accordance with law. It is made clear that the amount, which would be deposited by the petitioners/establishments/employers and which has already been deposited and lying with the custody of the Provident Fund Authorities, shall be kept in safe deposit till it is being finally disbursed in favour of the actual workers. Issue No.(iii) is answered accordingly. Accordingly, all the writ petitions are disposed of with the above observations and directions.