Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions
Act, 1952 (19 of 1952) - Appeal - Limitation - Condonation of delay of 131 days - Appellate Court did not condone the delay - Due to the procedural delay, the petitioner could not file the
appeal in time - The delay in filing the appeal before the lower appellate Court has been sufficiently explained and the same deserves to be condoned - Guidelines - Limitation Act, 1963 (36
of 1963). (180) PLR
Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions
Act, 1952 (19 of 1952) - Employees Provident Funds Scheme 1952, Para 32-B - Non deposit of funds within time - The ground of financial problem is not available - Hindustan Tiles Ltd. v. Union
of India, 1998(2) S.C.T. 256 (S.C.) followed - Shanti Garments v. RPFC, 2003(1) C.L.R. 228 (Mad.) cannot be accepted.(180) PLR
Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions
Act, 1952 (19 of 1952) S.2(e)(f) - All the employees/workers employed by the contractor were paid salary by the
petitioner-contractor - The petitioner-contractor has also been allotted a separate code number - It is the petitioner-contractor which has relationship of employer and employee and the PSEB
i.e. the establishment has no control over the service conditions of the employees employed by the contractor, therefore could not be held liable for making the contribution on account of the
employees employed by the petitioner-contractor.(179) PLR
Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions
Act, 1952 (19 of 1952) S.7-A, 14 - Each assessment year is independent and recourse to proceedings under Section 7-A and 14-B
of the Act remain independent within each period of assessment and, therefore, the interim stay granted in appeal can have no bearing on the subsequent period against which no appeal was
filed - If the subsequent assessment year has become final qua the school under Section 7-A then it matters little as to what was the status prior to that period as that would remain covered,
in any rate, by the subsequent period and in the future - It is also well settled in the EPF law.
Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions
Act, 1952 (19 of 1952) S.7-A - Authority was only required to quantify the amount due from the employer - The applicability
of the Act in class of employees was not to be determined by any proceedings under Section 7(A) of the Act. (176) PLR
Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions
Act, 1952 (19 of 1952) S.7(i) - Statutory remedy of appeal under Section 7(I) of the Act available to the petitioner-company
would be in the nature of a substantive remedy - The appellate authority i.e. the Tribunal was obligated to consider the matter independently and to deal with all the contentions/grounds
raised in the appeal - Having failed to do so, the Tribunal while passing the impugned order has defeated the very purpose of the enactment by virtue of which the substantive remedy of appeal
has been provided. (177) PLR
Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions
Act, 1952 (19 of 1952) S.7A - Violation of the procedure prescribed under the Act will itself give a power to the Civil Court
to examine whether the notice issued was competent or not - The ouster of jurisdiction of Civil Court shall be strictly construed at all times, for an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC
will be examined from the point of view of what is stated in the plaint as true. (182) PLR
Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions
Act, 1952 (19 of 1952) S.7Q, 7B - It is a matter of record that the brick kiln works for a limited period only and the
Provident Fund Commissioner does not appear to have resorted to the compliance of principles of natural justice by sending a notice at the residential address of the petitioner instead
addressed at the work place - Presiding Officer - Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi should have decided the appeal on merits instead of pondering upon the issue of delay
and laches or should have looked into grounds, particularly grounds raised in the appeal. (180) PLR
Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions
Act, 1952 (19 of 1952) S.7Q - Failure to make contribution - Employer is mandatorily required to pay interest in consonance
to make the contribution.(179) PLR
Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions
Act, 1952 (19 of 1952) S. 14-B - Central Provident Fund Commissioner does not compulsorily have to impose damage as the word used is `may' - The word `may' envisages "it may think fit to
impose".(180) PLR
Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions
Act, 1952 (19 of 1952) S. 17-A - 17 pages order passed by authority - Appellate Tribunal in appeal passed a two page cryptic order - Court is startled at the reasoning recorded by the
Presiding Officer, Employee's Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi and harbours hardly any doubt that the work is shameless and this Court is sorry to say that it is dangerous for
Tribunals to be manned by persons who appear to understand nothing of how jurisdiction is to be exercised - When one reads what precedes the opening words in para. 4; "As a result of these
considerations" you find nothing at all which may even remotely qualify as consideration, or reasoning or a finding on any of the issues -It seems rather apparent that the appellate authority has got rid of the appeal as soon as possible
- Order quashed.(182) PLR
This website uses cookies. Cookies improve the user experience and help make this website better. By continuing to use the site, you agree to our cookie policy: More details here: Cookie PolicyOk
