Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

W.ANILKUMAR, S/O. WILSON versus REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER

High Court of Kerala

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


W.ANILKUMAR, S/O. WILSON v. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER - WP(C) No. 5499 of 2007(D) [2007] RD-KL 8810 (28 May 2007)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C) No. 5499 of 2007(D)

1. W.ANILKUMAR, S/O. WILSON,
... Petitioner

Vs

1. REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER,
... Respondent

2. ENFORCEMENT OFFICER,

3. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,

4. MARANALLOOR KSHEERA VYAVASAYA SAHAKARANA

5. N.BHASURANGAN,

6. GENERAL MANAGER,

7. MANAGER,

For Petitioner :SRI.THOMAS ABRAHAM

For Respondent :SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN (SR.)

The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN

Dated :28/05/2007

O R D E R

S. SIRI JAGAN, J.

W.P.(C)NO. 5499 OF 2007

DATED THIS THE 28th DAY OF MAY, 2007



JUDGMENT

A worker of the 4th respondent Society seeks the following reliefs.

"i. issue writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction commanding respondents 1 and 2 to take necessary steps under the Provident Fund Act to prevent the evasion of payments towards Provident Fund Account by the 4th and 5th respondents. ii. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the Executive Magistrate to initiate steps under Section 110 of the Provident Fund Act as per Exhibit P2 representation. iii. issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the 1st respondent to take appropriate steps under section 8 to 8(G) of the Provident Fund Act. and iv. to grant such other and further releifs as deemed by this Hon'ble Court fit and proper to grant in the facts and circumstances of this case".

2. The respondents 4 and 5 have filed a counter affidavit in which they have categorically stated that the matter is pending in appeal before the Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal and this Court had granted an interim order on condition that the petitioner pays Rs.30,000/- directing that further proceedings would be kept in abeyance till orders are passed in the stay petition by the Tribunal. W.P.(c)No.5499/07 2 It is stated in the counter affidavit that no orders have been passed by the Tribunal. That being so, the prayers of the petitioner cannot be granted at this juncture. However, the petitioner may move for appropriate reliefs, after the appeal pending before the Tribunal is disposed of. Without prejudice to such right this writ petition is dismissed.

S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE

Acd W.P.(c)No.5499/07 3


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.