GAJANAN MAHARAJ SANSTHAN Vs. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties.

(2.) It is not in dispute that the petitioner filed review petition under Section 7-B of the Employees' Provident Fund Act. The review petition was required to be decided by Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Sub-Division Office, Akola. There is no dispute before me that the said review petition was decided without hearing the petitioner or without issuing notice of hearing to the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the respondent - organization states that the same was decided with a well reasoned order, and therefore, there is no need to remand the proceedings. It is not possible to accept the contention raised by learned Counsel for the organization because the provisions of Section 7-B of the Act specifically provides for review and the same will have to be decided after issuing notice to review petitioner and all concerned parties, and obviously after hearing them.

(3.) Writ Petition is partly allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. The review petition is remitted to the Assistant Commissioner of Provident Fund, Akola, who shall hear the review petitioner and concerned parties and decide the same afresh in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible and in any case within a period of two months from the date of receipt of writ from this Court.