ORDER : 1. Petitioner has filed this petition praying for following reliefs: “(A) Be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, direction against the Respondent No. 1 for quashing and setting aside the action of issuing notice U/s 8F ANNEXURE -A and B for attachment of Petitioner’s Bank Account of Axis Bank in the interest of justice. (B) Be pleased to pass appropriate order, directing the respondent No. 1 to refund Rs. 7,23,884/- along with interest @ 12% from th date of collecting the said amount directly from petitioner’s Bank Account to date of payment to the petitioner. (C) During the pendency of the present proceedings be pleased to grant ad-interim relief staying operation, execution and implementation of Notice U/s 8F ANNEXURE -A and B in the interest of justice till final disposal of the Petition. (D) Be pleased to direct Respondent No. 4 Axis Bank, to allow the Petitioner for operating its Bank Account in the interest of justice.” 2. The petitioner is the company manufacturing electric lighting products situated at Limbasi, District Kheda, having been covered with statutory provisions of Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for its employees bearing EPF Code No. GJ/53240. Respondent No. 1 is an authority to recover the amount of the PF dues under Section 8 of the Act from the establishments who have not paid the PF dues. 3. The petitioner had assigned some work on contractual basis to those establishments, which are having the registered code number with Employees Provident Fund Organization (hereinafter referred to as ‘the EPF’). Respondent No. 2 Shivam Enterprise, having independent registered Code No. GJAHD/57627 with EPF authority, was assigned work on contract during the period from 1st October, 2011 to 31st January, 2014. It was initially paid the bill amounting to Rs. 1,99,56,698/-, whereas respondent No. 3 M/s. Jatin Enterprise, having independent registered Code number GJ/1349248 with the EPF authority, was also assigned the work on contract during the period from 1st June 2014 to 31st March 2015 and it was fully paid the bills amounting to Rs. 1,16,97,833/-. 4. It is urged by the petitioner that the EPF imposed damages and interest to the tune of Rs. 12,68,410/- against respondent Nos. 2 and Rs. 6,50,264/- against respondent no. 1,16,97,833/-. 4. It is urged by the petitioner that the EPF imposed damages and interest to the tune of Rs. 12,68,410/- against respondent Nos. 2 and Rs. 6,50,264/- against respondent no. 3 for the delayed payments of employers’ shares of provident funds for the period from June 2014 to December 2017. The work of contract with Respondent No. 2 ended on 31st March 2015. 5. Two notices nos. 935 and 936 dated 16.09.2019 came to be issued under Sections 8F of the Act to respondent No. 4, the Axis Bank, where the Petitioner’s Bank Account is maintained. 6. Grievance on the part of the petitioner is that respondent No. 1 neither informed the petitioner nor forwarded the copy of the notice under Section 8F. Therefore, it has lamented that the respondent No. 1 violated the mandatory provisions of Section 8F(3)(iii) of the Act. Bank Account of the petitioner came to be freeze pursuant to the demand of damages under Section 14B of the Act and interest amount under Section 7Q of the Act. The petitioner also came to know that respondent No. 1 directly collected Rs. 7,23,884/- from the Axis Bank, where the petitioner was having Bank Account. 7. The petitioner has further averred that respondent Nos. 2 and 3 being registered contractors with EPF Organization, has become independent establishments under the provisions of the said Act and also under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, where the employer himself is liable to pay the amount of damages and interest levied under Sections 14-B and 7-Q of the Act. It is further the say of the petitioner that provisions of Sections 30(2) and 30(3) of the EPF Scheme, 1952 shall not be applicable in case of the registered contractors having independent code number as per the settled law. Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 do not have any credit balance with the petitioner and this aspect according to the petitioner is known by the EPF. 8. Therefore, the notice issued to respondent no. 4 is illegal and revocable. The petitioner issued legal notice dated 04.10.2019, through his counsel, to the Recovery Officer and Assistant PF Commissioner, whereby he was requested to withdraw notice dated 16.09.2019 under section 8F of the Act issued to the Axis Bank and to defreeze petitioner’s Bank Account immediately. 8. Therefore, the notice issued to respondent no. 4 is illegal and revocable. The petitioner issued legal notice dated 04.10.2019, through his counsel, to the Recovery Officer and Assistant PF Commissioner, whereby he was requested to withdraw notice dated 16.09.2019 under section 8F of the Act issued to the Axis Bank and to defreeze petitioner’s Bank Account immediately. This, according to the petitioner is hasty action on the part of the respondent authorities, where the petitioner, was intimated without adjudicating his case, under sections 14-B and 7-Q of the Act by straightway issuing notice under Section 8F of the Act. 9. Affidavit of the Recovery Officer and Assistant Regional Provident Fund Commissioner-II, Ahmedabad is filed, wherein, it is not in dispute that direction has been issued to Axis Bank for freezing the account. It is the essential ground of the respondent no. 1 that principal employer being M/s Cema Electric Lighting Products India Pvt. Ltd, the petitioner herein, has been directed to pay the pending dues of the contractors to EPFO by issuance of the notice under Section 8F 3(i). It permits the authority to recover contribution not paid by the contractors from principal employer. 10. It is urged that it is the responsibility of the employer to ensure remittances/compliance of PF dues in respect of employees engaged for work either by him or engaged by any contractor. It is pointed out to this Court that both the contractors are covered separately under EPF and the said Act, but the payment of PF dues were being paid by the petitioner in their respective code numbers. Only after constant pressure by Office, it has been remitted after delay of two years on the part of the contractors to make payment to EPFO. The statement produced by the petitioner, according to this respondent, regarding clearing of dues of the both the contractors but the same has not been submitted before the recovery authority, even though, they were directed to produce the same. Its responsibility as the principal employer under Section 8A of the Act would not be diluted. Again, there are misleading details furnished to the Court. 11. Rejoinder affidavit and sur-rejoinder are taken into account and also various documentary evidence which are relied upon by both the sides. 12. Its responsibility as the principal employer under Section 8A of the Act would not be diluted. Again, there are misleading details furnished to the Court. 11. Rejoinder affidavit and sur-rejoinder are taken into account and also various documentary evidence which are relied upon by both the sides. 12. It is not in dispute that the petitioner, as the principal employer had given contract to both the contractors i.e. respondent Nos 2 and 3 namely M/s. Shivam Enterprise and M/s. Jatin Enterprise. Both the contractors have independent registered Code Nos. GJAHD/57627 and GJ/1349248 respectively and they have been assigned contract from 1st October, 2011 to 31st January, 2014 and from 1st June 2014 to 31st March 2015. 13. It appears that the contribution of the employer which was to be made with the EPFO, had been delayed by these contractors, on the ground that they had been paid late by the petitioner. Thereupon, undoubtedly delay in making the payment from the period June-2014 and December -2017 and such delayed payment initiated inquiry under section 7Q of the Act and for recovery of the damages under Section 14B of the Act. 14. It is admitted fact that when the inquiry under Section 7Q of the Act was undertaken and against the respondent No. 1 had been determined the amount of damages under Section 14B of the Act, no opportunity was given to the petitioner. It is only at the stage of recovery under Section 8F of the Act for which notice has been issued to the petitioner. The Bank Account was freezed and the amount of Rs. 7,23,884/- still lies with the Axis Bank till date though it has been drawn in favour of the EPFO. 15. This Court after hearing the parties on 22.10.19 passed the following order: “1. This Court on 15.10.2019 while issuing the Notice for final disposal had noted that this is a petition, where the petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that, though, he has paid to both the contractors, viz., M/s. Shivam Enterprise and M/s. Jatin Enterprise, the amount of provident fund, pensions and other expenses, and since these two independent concerns have no connection with the petitioner, for they being the third parties, so far as their legal existence is concerned, they are merely providing the labourers to the petitioner. The provident fund authority in the proceedings under Section 14B of the Employees' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as 'the P.F. Act' for short) has chosen to freeze the bank accounts of the petitioner. 2. Learned advocate Mr. P.J. Mehta appearing for the petitioner has urged that the entire amount has already been paid to the independent contractors, the proof of which had already been given to the Provident Fund authorities, by way of a communication dated 08.10.2019. He has further submitted that in the entire proceedings under Section 14B of the P.F. Act, the petitioner had not been made the party. It is further his say that all the bank accounts of the petitioner company had been frozen. This is a time of festivity and the month is ending; they shall have also to make the payment to the labourers and they are put in jeopardy because of the action of P.F. Authority. 3. According to the learned advocate Ms. E. Shailaja appearing for the P.F. Authority, what emerges from the record is that the Jatin Enterprise and Shivam Enterprise were admittedly the contractors working for the petitionerM/ s. CEMA Electric Lighting Product India Pvt. Ltd. Against both of them, proceedings under Section 14B and 7Q of the P.F. Act have been initiated. The recovery proceedings have also initiated against both these contractors. She further urges that a notice under Section 8F of the said Act dated 18.06.2019 also had been issued for the dues of the Shivam Enterprise, and therefore, the petitioner was put at the notice regarding the recovery that may be initiated against the principal employer of the establishment. It is further his say that in the recovery proceedings, a letter dated 24.10.2015 issued by CEMA to Jatin Enterprise and a letter dated 20.02.2015 issued by CEMA to Shivam Enterprise had brought to the notice of the Recovery Officer. The petitioner accepted having retained the PF dues of both i.e. Jatin Enterprise and Shivam Enterprise, beyond the dates provided for statutory compliance. The contract with Shivam Enterprise and Jatin Enterprise had ended on January, 2014 and March, 2015 respectively. The statutory remittances since have been delayed by the petitioner and as both the respondent nos. The petitioner accepted having retained the PF dues of both i.e. Jatin Enterprise and Shivam Enterprise, beyond the dates provided for statutory compliance. The contract with Shivam Enterprise and Jatin Enterprise had ended on January, 2014 and March, 2015 respectively. The statutory remittances since have been delayed by the petitioner and as both the respondent nos. 2 and 3 have become defunct in post termination of contract with the petitioner, two orders have been issued on 16.09.2019 to the bankers of the petitioner, since, the Recovery Officer has not received any amount under Section 8F of the P.F. Act. The bank also intimated the authority that there was no balance. For Jatin Enterprise – respondent no.3, the amount due of the P.F. Authority is Rs.6,49,764/ (Rupees Six Lakh Forty Nine Thousand Seven Sixty Four only) and the amount due of the P.F. Authority for Shivam Enterprise – respondent no.2 is Rs.12,68,410/ (Rupees Twelve Lakh Sixty Eight Thousand Four Hundred Ten only). 4. This Court also noticed that the reply dated 04.10.2019 from R.D. Sharma & Associates, Advocates & Consultants of the petitioner, who have communicated to the P.F. Authorities that since the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Ahmedabad has independently covered and has allotted separate code numbers to both the respondent nos. 2 and 3 under the P.F. Act and the registered contractor become an establishment under the said Act and also under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, the petitioner would not be liable for damages and interest as per the P.F. Act. Therefore, the request is made to withdraw the notice. 5. The respondent nos. 2 and 3, though have been duly served, they have chosen not to appear nor respond nor file any reply, therefore, qua them, matter have gone uncontested. 6. The Court also notices that the entire emphasis on the part of the petitioner is of having paid the dues to both the respondent nos. 2 and 3 long back. It has also communicated that the amount which has been paid to both the contractors, with whom the contracts have already been terminated in the year 2014 and 2015 respectively, there is no corresponding proof of having made the payment either by way of a cheque or by any recognizable mode to establish before this Court of having paid the entire amount to the respondent nos. 2 and 3. 2 and 3. At this stage, learned advocate Mr. Mehta ensures to get this proof, for which he seeks a day's time. He has also made out an urgency, because the accounts of the petitioner company have been frozen. 7. At his request the Court is inclined to consider his request of adducing on record the additional proof of having paid the amount to respondent nos. 2 and 3. This has been necessitated as neither respondent No.2 nor No.3 has chosen to appear or to contest in this petition before this Court. This being the dues of the labour class, it is desirable that the acceptable/admissible proof is adduced before this Court. For the limited purpose, matter is adjourned to 23rd October, 2019.” 16. Pursuant to the said order the petitioner has produced the requisite details indicating prima facie as to how on regular basis, the payment has been made to both the contractors. They, in turn, according to the petitioner, have not made payment to the respondent authority towards employers contribution. 17. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have not chosen to remain present before this Court. In wake of absence of any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, indulgence is required, quashing and setting aside the order of the respondent authority of attachment of bank account of the petitioner and relegating the parties to the concerned authority for it to adjudicate, upon availing opportunities to the parties concerned. Parties shall remain present on 18.12.2019 at 11.30 a.m. before the Respondent No. 1 authority. 18. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 shall remain present before the concerned authority (Respondent No. 1) on telephonic intimation or on intimation via e-mail or text message on official mobile phones. No separate notice or summons shall be made. Let time be given to the petitioner to reply of one week and thereafter, adjudicatory process shall be completed within two weeks. Thereafter, once the said proceedings are concluded, the petitioner will be entitled to take necessary legal recourse, if the same results contrary to its request. Respondent No. 1, can proceed under the Act, after the adjudicatory process is over. 19. Thereafter, once the said proceedings are concluded, the petitioner will be entitled to take necessary legal recourse, if the same results contrary to its request. Respondent No. 1, can proceed under the Act, after the adjudicatory process is over. 19. The amount, which has been lying with the Axis Bank is not released in favour of the EPFO and shall continue to remain with the Bank for a period of four weeks and till then, the same shall be fixed deposited, subject to the outcome of the inquiry. And, if authority concerned decides not to proceed against the present petitioner, such amount shall be immediately defreezed and released in favour of the petitioner, however, if the petitioner is held responsible, due legal course shall be followed by the Respondent no.1 to get the amount from the Axis Bank. This petition stands disposed of with the above directions. Direct Service is permitted.