were assessed, vide two separate orders. No doubt, the petitioner in the present case has failed to avail of the opportunities afforded to it during the proceedings under Section 7(A) of the Act, but the fact remains that unless the beneficiaries are identified, the amount deposited with Provident Fund Department will not be of any use to the employees for whose benefit the Trust has been created. The case of the petitioner is that during the period in question, the employees employed by it were less than the number in December, 1997. Even if it furnishes the information on the statutory forms regarding the details of the employees working during that period, the amount in excess will remain with the Commissioner which will not be credited to the account of any of the employee. 12. In view of my aforesaid discussion, the impugned orders passed by the Commissioner as well as the Tribunal are quashed and the petitioner is afforded an opportunity to produce the record before the Commissioner pertaining to the number of employees working during the period in question, who were entitled to be covered under the provisions of the Act so that they are identified and the amount already deposited or which may further be required to be deposited, is credited in their accounts. However, it is made clear that in case lesser amount is assessed, the amount already deposited by the petitioner shall be adjusted against future liability. Since the petitioner in the present case is at fault in not availing of the opportunities afforded to it during the course of proceedings under Section 7(A) of the Act, it is burdened with costs of ` 15,000/- each in both the petitions, which is to be deposited by it by way of cheque/demand draft with the Commissioner, before whom representative of the petitioner will appear for further proceedings on 21.9.2012.
