SANATAN DHARAM GIRLS COLLEGE, BHATINDA versus REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, BH

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

---

Sanatan Dharam Girls College, Bhatinda v. Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Bh - CWP-12214-2005 [2006] RD-P&H 5827 (22 August 2006)

C.W.P NO. 12214 OF 2005 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

* * * * *

C.W.P NO. 12214 OF 2005

Date of decision : August 3, 2006

* * * * *

Sanatan Dharam Girls College, Bhatinda .....Petitioner Vs.

Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Bhatinda ...........Respondents * * * * *

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEY MITTAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S BHALLA

Present: Mr. Raman Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

Mr. Rajesh Hooda, Advocate for Mr. Kamal Sehgal, Advocate the respondents.

* * * * *

Viney Mittal, J. (Oral)

The petitioner is aggrieved against the order dated July 7, 2005 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Appellate Tribunal, whereby the petitioner has been required to deposit 50% of the amount in terms of Section 7 (o) of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act') failing which the appeal of the petitioner was liable to be not entertained. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgement rendered by the Delhi High Court in (Old Village Industries Ltd. Vs. Asst. Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees' Provident Fund Organization & another) to contend that C.W.P NO. 12214 OF 2005 2

since the order in question which was challenged in appeal was not an order passed under Section 7(o) of the Act but was passed under Section 14-B of the Act. Therefore, the provisions of Section 7(o) of the Act were not applicable and the petitioner could not be required to deposit the amount in question before the entertainment of the appeal.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the judgement relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, we are satisfied that the grievance made by the petitioner is wholly justified. It is not in dispute that order which has been challenged by the petitioner before the Appellate Tribunal was an order passed under Section 14-B of the act and was not passed under Section 7-A of the Act.

In these circumstances, in view of the law laid down in Old Village Industries case (Supra), we allow the present petition and quash the order Annexure P-2 and direct the appellate Tribunal to decide the appeal filed by the petitioner without insisting upon the deposit of any amount.

Copy of the order be given dasti on the payment of the usual charges.

( VINEY MITTAL )

JUDGE

August 3, 2006 ( H.S BHALLA )

ritu JUDGE

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

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.