High CourtsSingle Bench(2011) 12 KAR CK 0045

M/s. Neulite Products Pvt. Ltd. vs The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner Employees Provident Fund Organisation, Sub-Regional Office No. 109-128, Gayathripuram II Stage Mysore - 570019 and Mysore Jilla Mazdoor Sangh R. No.7, Kalyana Bhavan Building Thyagaraja Road Mysore 570004

Karnataka High Court · Decided on 7 December 2011

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ram Mohan Reddy, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition No. 11143 of 2011 (L-PF) and Miscellaneous W. No. 7460 of 2011

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 225 words

Ram Mohan Reddy

1.

Petitioner-industry having suffered an order u/s 7-A or the Employees'' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, for short; ''Act'', carried it in an appeal u/s 7-1 of the Act before the Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, whence by order dt. 16.3.2010 the appeal was partly allowed and remitted for a determination of the liability of the employees excluding 11 employees. On remand, petitioner appeared in the enquiry, whence the Authority determined the liability in respect of 77 workmen and passed the order dt. 24.8.2010 Annexure-C. Hence this petition calling in question the order dt. 16.3.2010 Annexure-A of the Appellate Tribunal remitting the proceeding for re-determination and the order dt. 24.8.2010 Annexure-C.

2.

Petitioner having appeared before the Authority, after remand, in the matter of determination of the liability of employees other than 11 excluded employees as directed by the Appellate Tribunal in its order Annexure-A and having suffered a subsequent order Annexure-C of the Authority, after remand, is disentitled to question the order Annexure-A and on that score alone petition deserves to be rejected.

3.

If the petitioner is aggrieved by the order Annexure-C of the Asst. Provident Fund Commissioner, it may question the same in an appropriate statutory appeal u/s 7-I of the Act before the Appellate Tribunal.

4.

Petition is accordingly rejected.

5.

Miscellaneous application is dismissed as unnecessary.