Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

MANJIT SINGH & ORS. versus KUSUM JIT SIDHU & ORS.

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Manjit Singh & Ors. v. Kusum Jit Sidhu & Ors. - COCP-1403-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 12578 (14 December 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

COCP No.1403 of 2006

Date of decision: December 18, 2006.

Manjit Singh & Ors.

...Petitioner(s)

v.

Kusum Jit Sidhu & Ors.

...Respondent(s)

Present: Shri K.S. Dadwal, Advocate for the petitioners.

Ms. Reeta Kohli, Sr. Dy. Advocate General, Punjab for the respondents.

Surya Kant, J. (Oral)

This contempt petition has been filed, inter-alia, alleging that despite the order dated 8.2.2006 passed by this court in CWP No.2525 of 2001, the employees provident fund contribution in respect of the petitioners, is not being deposited by the respondents. The petitioners No.3,7,9 and 10, however, were not party to the above stated writ petition but their case is that they are at par with the other petitioners who had approached this court in the above stated writ petition.

Except in the case of petitioners No.3,7,9 and 10, it is stated by Learned State Counsel that the arrears of employees contributory provident fund have been deposited. According to Learned Counsel for the petitioners the said amount has been wrongly calculated as the same ought to have been much more than what has been actually deposited.

After hearing Learned Counsel for the parties, this petition is disposed of with the following directions:- (i) as far as those petitioners in respect of whom the contributory provident fund has been deposited, the respondents shall circulate a 'statement of accounts' to them in which all the details regarding calculation of the deposited amount shall be provided;

(ii) if any of these petitioners has any grievance against the said 'statement of accounts', he shall be at liberty to represent to the authorities within 15 days of the receipt of the same and, if any such representation is made, the same shall be objectively considered by the competent authority within two months from the date of its receipt;

(iii) as regards petitioners No.3,7,9 and 10, the respondents shall examine their case as well in the light of the judgment dated 8.2.2006 passed by this court in CWP No.2525 of 2001 and if their claim is found at par with the other petitioners, the arrears of employees provident fund contribution qua them shall also be deposited within a period of 3 months from today; similarly, these petitioners shall also be supplied copy of the 'statement of accounts' and they too be given liberty to represent against the same, if so required; (iv) in order to avoid multiplicity of litigation, the respondents are further directed to examine the case(s) of other left out similarly situated employees, like that of one Nand Lal and if their case(s) are also at par with the writ petitioners, necessary deposits of the contributory provident fund shall be made in their case(s) within the stipulated period.

December 18, 2006. [ Surya Kant ]

kadyan Judge


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.