JUDGMENT Alok Aradhe, J. - In this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari for quashment of order dated 17.06.2020 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court. In order to appreciate the petitioner's grievance, relevant facts need mention, which are stated infra. 2. The respondent No. 1 is a proprietary concern, which is engaged in trading of granites. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commissioner' for short) sought contribution in respect of establishment/quarrying being carried on in Sy. No. 248 at Melamala, Chamrajanagar. In the year 1993, provident fund enforcement officer inspected the establishment and allotted PF Code No. BN/18088 to respondent No. 1. Thereafter, a show cause notice dated 24.02.1995 was issued to the respondent No. 1 for payment of Employees Provident Fund Contribution from May 1993 to January 1995. The respondent No. 1 filed a reply on 20.03.1995 in which, inter alia, it was stated that it is neither engaged in any quarrying activity nor has employed any employees. The respondent No. 1 further stated that PF Code number allotted to it be cancelled and it was pointed out that M/s. Gem Granites is the employer of the employees involved in quarrying activity. 3. Thereupon, the Commissioner summoned M/s. Gem Granites as well as respondent No. 2. M/s. Gem Granites contended that it is are already covered under the Act and has been allotted PF Code No. KN/10817. The Respondent No. 2 viz., Prasad Granites admitted its liability to pay the Provident Fund Contribution. It was further stated that it has made payment of the Employees Provident Fund Contribution till 1996 i.e., till acquisition of the land by the Forest Department. 4. The Commissioner passed an order dated 02.12.2013 against M/s. Prasad Granites for a period from April 1993 till February 1995, by which damages under Section 14B and interest under Section 7Q of the Act for the aforesaid period was imposed. Thereafter, a memo dated 12.04.2004 was issued requiring the respondent No. 2 to deposit the amount of damages. Sometime in the year 2009, respondent No. 1 approached the Commissioner to cover its employees under the Act who were employed in Badana Guppa Village. The Commissioner thereupon initiated an enquiry under Section 7A of the Act and passed an order on 23.01.2014. Sometime in the year 2009, respondent No. 1 approached the Commissioner to cover its employees under the Act who were employed in Badana Guppa Village. The Commissioner thereupon initiated an enquiry under Section 7A of the Act and passed an order on 23.01.2014. It was held that respondent No. 1 is covered under the provisions of the Act since the year 1993-94 and the respondent No. 1 was held liable to pay a sum of Rs. 88,68,593/- for a period from December 2007 to October 2009. 5. The aforesaid order was subject matter of challenge in an appeal before the tribunal. The tribunal quashed the order dated 23.01.2014 and remitted the matter to conduct a fresh enquiry after affording an opportunity of hearing to respondent No. 1. The Commissioner thereupon required respondent No. 1 to produce the documents for a period from December 2007 to October 2009. The respondent No. 1 thereupon reiterated its stand and requested the Commissioner to implead M/s. Prasad Granites viz., respondent No. 2 and to decide whether PF Code No. KNNYS/18088 belongs to M/s. Bilgiri Granites or not. The respondent No. 2 as well as M/s. Gem Granites filed their respective objections. The request of respondent No. 1 to decide the question as to whom the PF code number was allotted was rejected on the ground that enquiry was only confined for a period from December 2007 to October 2009. 6. The Commissioner by an order dated 24.11.2016 passed an order under Section 7A of the Act, by which the respondent No. 1 was held liable to pay a sum of Rs. 88,69,693/- for a period from December 2007 to October 2009. The respondent No. 1 assailed the aforesaid order in an appeal. The tribunal by an order dated 17.06.2020 has allowed the appeal and has quashed the order dated 24.11.2016 passed by the Commissioner. However, the liberty has been reserved to initiate the enquiry under Section 7A of the Act. In the aforesaid factual background, this petition has been filed. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Profit and Loss account as well as Balance Sheet indicates that quarry operation was being carried on at the relevant time. It is further submitted that despite 56 opportunities given to respondent No. 1, it has not submitted the relevant records in the enquiry. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Profit and Loss account as well as Balance Sheet indicates that quarry operation was being carried on at the relevant time. It is further submitted that despite 56 opportunities given to respondent No. 1, it has not submitted the relevant records in the enquiry. It is also urged that for a period from 1993 till 2007, the respondent did not dispute its liability and no document has been filed to show the transfer of ownership to M/s. Prasad Granites. On the other hand, learned Senior counsel for respondent No. 1 submitted that an inspection was carried out by the enforcement officer which was made the basis for passing the impugned order. It is pointed out that no opportunity to cross examine the aforesaid officer has been given to respondent No. 1 and the liability to pay the amount has not been ascertained. It is submitted that only issue pertaining to quantification of the amount has been examined. It is also urged that the order passed by the tribunal does not call for any interference in the facts and circumstances of the case. 8. We have considered the submissions made on both sides and have perused the record. The tribunal has held that the Commissioner was required to record the findings on following issues: (i) Whether the appellant continued to be the owner in possession of the land over which quarrying was being carried on for the period in question i.e., 2007-08 and 2008-09? (ii) Whether he was carrying on quarrying on the said land with valid licence? (iii) Whether he had engaged 20 employees on the said land for the quarry? (iv) Whether the licence No. KN/MYS/18088 allotted to him was operative even after his request to cancel the same, during the period 2007-08 and 2008-09? 9. It has further been held that in case, the respondent No. 1 is liable to pay the contribution for the aforesaid period, the question of identification of beneficiaries to whose account the contribution has to be deposited was required to be determined by the Commissioner. 10. It has further been held that the order dated 24.11.2016 was passed by the Commissioner without determining the applicability of the Act for the period from December 2007 to October 2009. 10. It has further been held that the order dated 24.11.2016 was passed by the Commissioner without determining the applicability of the Act for the period from December 2007 to October 2009. It has further been held that the copy of the enforcement officer's report was not made available to the petitioner and it was not available to the respondent No. 1. It was also not afforded an opportunity to cross examine the enforcement officer. Therefore, it has been held that the order has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice. It has also been held that liability of the respondent No. 1 to pay the Employees Provident Fund contribution has to be determined in respect of the beneficiaries who are identified. 11. Thus, it is evident that the tribunal has assigned cogent reasons for setting aside the order passed by the Commissioner. The order passed by the Commissioner is a non speaking order with regard to applicability of the Act for the period in question i.e., from December 2007 to October 2009 and has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice as neither the copy of the report of the enquiry officer, which formed the basis for initiation of proceeding under the Act was supplied to respondent No. 1 nor it was given an opportunity to cross examine the enforcement officer. The tribunal has therefore, rightly quashed the order passed by the Commissioner and has reserved the liberty to him to initiate the enquiry under Section 7AB of the Act afresh. The order passed by the Tribunal neither suffers from any infirmity nor any error apparent on the face of the record warranting interference of this court in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction. In the result, we do not find any merit in this petition, the same fails and is hereby dismissed.