ORDER
M.Y. Eqbal, J.
1. In this writ application the petitioner M/s. Sahil Construction Company has prayed for quashing the order dated 8.2.2000 as contained in Annexure 2 to the writ application passed by respondent No. 2. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Ranchi whereby the review application filed by the petitioner under Section 7B of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 has been rejected.
2. Petitioner is a construction company and several persons are under its employment. It is stated that petitioner received an ex parte order dated 18.6.1999 passed by respondent No. 2 under Section 7A of the said Act determining the liability of the petitioner under the Provident Fund Act. After receiving the said order, petitioner filed application under Section 7B of the said Act for review of the order dated 18.6.1999. It is alleged that all of a sudden the respondent rejected the said application by order dated 8.2.2000 and directed the petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,76,020/- within 15 days.
3. Mr. D.K. Chakravarty, learned counsel for the petitioner although not disputed the fact that notice of the proceeding under Section 7A of the Act was given to the petitioner but his contention is that before rejecting the review application, respondent No. 2 ought to have given opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
4. In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents, it is stated that the petitioner during proceeding under Section 7A never appeared either through his employer or through any representative although several opportunities were given, petitioner also did not persue his review application rather kept mum after filing the said application. Respondents’ further case is that petitioner is covered establishment and on its own application was made for the registration and code number for purpose of payment of provident fund amount.
5. The only question that falls for consideration is as to whether rejection of the review application by respondent No. 2 without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner is justified.
6. Section 7B of the Act reads as under :
“Review or orders passed under Section 7-A. (1) Any person aggrieved by an order made under Sub-section (1) of Section 7A, but from which no appeal has been preferred under this Act, and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made, or on account of some mistake or doer apparent on the face of the record or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of such order may apply for a review of that order to the Officer who passed the order :
Provided that such officer may also on his own motion review his order if he is satisfied that it is necessary so to do on any such ground.
(2) Every application for review under Sub-section (1) shall be filed in such form and manner and within such time as may be specified in the Scheme.
(3) Where it appears to the officer receiving an application for review that there is no sufficient ground for a review. he shall reject the application.
(4) Where the officer is of opinion that the application for review should be granted, he shall grant the same :
Provided that :
(a) no such application shall be granted without previous notice to all the parties before him to enable them to appear and be heard in support of the order in respect of which a review is applied for, and
(b) no such application shall be granted on the ground of discovery of new matter or evidence which the applicant alleges was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him when the order was made, without proof of such allegation.
(5) No appeal shall lie against the order of the officer rejecting an application for review but an appeal under this Act shall lie against an order passed under review as if the order passed under review were the original order passed by him under Section 7A.
7. From perusal of Sub-section (3) of Section 7-B, it appears that the reviewing authority may reject the review application, if it is found that no sufficient ground for review has been made. Sub-section (4) however. provides that in the event reviewing authority wants to grant review of the order then it can be done only after giving opportunity of hearing to all the parties.
8. As noticed above, petitioner has not disputed the fact that before passing the order under Section 7-A of the Act notices were given to the petitioner. This fact also appears from the order dated 18.6.1999. Relevant portion of the order passed under Section 7-A is reproduced herein below :
“Accordingly, a Notice No. BR/ SRO/RNC/EB-II/7- A/10336/98/4908 dated 7.12.1998 under Section 7-A of the Act was issued to the establishment fixing the date of hearing on 21.12.1998.
On 21.12.1998 nobody appeared. The hearing was adjourned to 12.1.1999. On 12.1.1999 none appeared on behalf of the establishment. Next date was fixed on 9.2.1999 and again on 9.3.1999 as non appeared on fixed dates, several opportunities have been afforded to the estt. But the establishment did not avail any opportunity.
I find no reason to prolong the proceeding any further because sufficient opportunities have been provided to the establishment for production of record but the establishment is avoiding the production of records. Neither they attended the hearing nor time petition was submitted. I decide to Finalise the case on the basis of records available in the office. The dues for the notice period is determined in the exercise of the powers conferred upon me under Section 7-A of the Act.”
9. In the impugned order dated 8.2.2000 the authority has mentioned the fact that despite several opportunities given to the petitioner in the proceeding under Section 7-A of the Act no step was taken and therefore final order was passed. The reviewing authority therefore satisfied that no ground has been made out for review of the order and rejected the review application. In the review application which was filed in the prescribed Form 9-A (Annexure 1) to the writ application, in Column 6 petitioner has mentioned non-service of notice as ground for review of the order. No other ground has been taken in the review application.
10. Taking into consideration all these facts, I am of the view that the impugned order rejecting the review application does not suffer from any serious illegality or infirmity. I am therefore, not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. There is no merit in this writ application, which is accordingly dismissed.