M/S. KUNJ GLASS PVT. LTD.versusTHE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER AND ANR.

                                                                             29-wp-5191-2008.doc


                      Shabnoor
                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                       WRIT PETITION NO.5191 OF 2008
SHABNOOR
AYUB                  M/s. Kunj Glass Pvt. Ltd.                  … Petitioner
PATHAN                           V/s.
Digitally signed by
SHABNOOR AYUB
                      The Assistant Provident Fund
PATHAN
Date: 2026.03.04
                      Commissioner & Anr.                        … Respondents
16:39:42 +0530



                      Mr. Kiran S. Bapat, Sr. Advocate, a/w S. Gawande, for
                      the Petitioner.


                                                  CORAM     : AMIT BORKAR, J.

                                                  DATED     : MARCH 4, 2026
                      P.C.:

                      1.      The present petition arises from an order dated 24 June
                      2008 passed by the Competent Authority while exercising powers
                      under Section 7A of the Employees’ Provident Funds and
                      Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. The petitioner was facing
                      proceedings under Section 7A of the said Act. During the course of
                      those proceedings, the petitioner made an application requesting
                      that certain documents and records be supplied. According to the
                      petitioner, those documents formed the very basis on which the
                      authorities    proposed   to   determine   liability    against      the
                      establishment. The Competent Authority, however, rejected that
                      request by the order which is now under challenge before this
                      Court.

                      2.      It is necessary to understand why the petitioner had asked
                      for those documents. Proceedings under Section 7A of the EPF and



                                                       1
                                                                     29-wp-5191-2008.doc


MP Act determine the liability of an employer to pay provident
fund contributions and other statutory dues. Such determination
may involve examination of records, verification of employment
details,    and    assessment        of     financial   liability.     Once      such
determination is made, it results in serious civil consequences for
the employer. For that reason, the enquiry contemplated under
Section 7A is required to follow the basic principles of natural
justice. A party against whom liability is proposed to be fixed must
know the material that is relied upon by the authority.

3.       The impugned order shows that the request for documents
was rejected mainly on the ground that a software system, which
forms part of the policy framework for implementation of the
Provident Fund Scheme, generates a list of establishments which
are shown as defaulters. On the basis of such generated
information, the authorities initiate action under the Act. In other
words, the authority appears to have proceeded on the footing that
since the software system identifies defaulting establishments,
there is no necessity to furnish further material to the petitioner.

4.       This reasoning cannot be accepted. A software system may
assist     the   department     in        identifying   possible       defaults      or
irregularities. It may also help in initiating proceedings. However,
the existence of such a system cannot override the requirement of
a principles of natural justice. When a statutory authority proceeds
to determine liability against a party, the affected party must be
given an opportunity to understand the basis of the proposed
action. If the authorities rely upon records, reports, statements, or
other material to allege default, the same must be disclosed to the



                                           2
                                                        29-wp-5191-2008.doc


person against whom the enquiry is conducted.

5.     Denial of such documents places the party at a clear
disadvantage. Without knowing the material relied upon by the
authority, the petitioner cannot effectively respond to the
allegations. The petitioner cannot verify whether the data relied
upon is correct, whether it relates to the petitioner’s establishment,
or whether there are errors in the calculation of liability.

6.     The   law   has   consistently   recognized     that    even     in
administrative or quasi judicial proceedings, the principles of
natural justice must be observed. One basic requirement of those
principles is that the affected party must have access to the
material which forms the foundation of the proposed action. Only
then can the party present its explanation, produce contrary
material, or point out factual mistakes. If such material is not
disclosed, the enquiry itself becomes unfair.

7.     In the present case, the authority rejected the petitioner’s
request without examining whether the documents sought were
relevant to the enquiry. The order merely refers to the existence of
a software based system and treats that as sufficient justification to
deny the request. Such an approach does not accord with the
requirements of a fair adjudicatory process under Section 7A of the
Act.

8.     For these reasons, the impugned order cannot be sustained.
Once proceedings under Section 7A are initiated, the authority
must conduct the enquiry in a transparent manner. If the
respondents propose to fasten statutory liability upon the



                                   3
                                                      29-wp-5191-2008.doc


petitioner, the petitioner is entitled to know the basis on which
such liability is sought to be determined.

9.    In these circumstances, the respondents are directed to
furnish to the petitioner all documents and material which the
authority proposes to rely upon in the proceedings under Section
7A of the EPF and MP Act. Such documents shall be supplied
within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order.

10.   After furnishing the documents, the Competent Authority
shall proceed further with the enquiry in accordance with law. The
petitioner shall be given reasonable opportunity to place its
explanation and supporting material before the authority. The
authority shall thereafter consider the matter and pass an
appropriate order on its own merits.

11.   Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a).

12.   The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.


                                             (AMIT BORKAR, J.)




                                  4