Full Text
Translation output
/ $-23 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C) 1074/2015 & CM No. 1908/2015
M/S. BHAVIK TERRYFAB • , Petitioner
Through: Mr.S.K. Gupta, Adv.
W.P.(C) 1074/2015 & CM No. 1908/2015
M/S. BHAVIK TERRYFAB • , Petitioner
Through: Mr.S.K. Gupta, Adv.
VERSUS
f- REGIONALiPROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER-II
Respondent
Through: Mr.Abhinav Ashok, Adv.
Respondent
Through: Mr.Abhinav Ashok, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.P.VAISH
03.02.2015 The petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated
03.12.2014 passed by Regional Provident Fund Commissioner- II
(Compliance) by filing the present petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
Notice.
.f Mr. Abhinav Ashok, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondent andstates thathe does not wantto file reply to the present petition.
With the consent of learned counsel forthe parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal.
2015:DHC:11579 The factual matrix of the present case is that the petitioner is covered under the provisions of Employees' Provident Fund and
Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short, 'the Act') and the
Employees' Provident Fund Scheme, 1952. The' petitioner was allotted PF Code No. RJ/15354. Vide impugned order dated
03.12.2014, respondent determined the amount under Section 14-B of the Act for the period 04/2007 to 05/2007.
. f Learned counsel for the petitioner urges that the petitioner has filed an appkl under Section 7-1 of the Act before the Employees'
Provident Fund. Appellate Tritjunal, New Delhi along with an
- i'. • application for stay ofoperation ofimpugned order. The said appeal has been registered. However, the appeal could not be heard as the
Presiding Officer of Employees' Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal retired on 30.11.2014 and till date no new Presiding Officer has joined.
Learned counsel for respondent appearing on advance notice does not dispute the .fact that there is no Presiding Officer. He, however, submits that the matter relating to appointment ofPresiding
Officer ofEmployees' Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi is under process.
Having considered the facts and circumstances of the present case, it i^ directed that till the application for stay is taken up for hearing by the Employees' Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, no coercive steps be taken against the petitioner to enforce the order t dated 03.^2.2014. . .
It is expected that the Employees' Provident Fund Appellate
Tribunal shall hear and dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible.
The petition and the application stand disposed ofaccordingly.
V '
FEBRUARY 03, 2015
03.02.2015 The petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated
03.12.2014 passed by Regional Provident Fund Commissioner- II
(Compliance) by filing the present petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
Notice.
.f Mr. Abhinav Ashok, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondent andstates thathe does not wantto file reply to the present petition.
With the consent of learned counsel forthe parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal.
2015:DHC:11579 The factual matrix of the present case is that the petitioner is covered under the provisions of Employees' Provident Fund and
Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short, 'the Act') and the
Employees' Provident Fund Scheme, 1952. The' petitioner was allotted PF Code No. RJ/15354. Vide impugned order dated
03.12.2014, respondent determined the amount under Section 14-B of the Act for the period 04/2007 to 05/2007.
. f Learned counsel for the petitioner urges that the petitioner has filed an appkl under Section 7-1 of the Act before the Employees'
Provident Fund. Appellate Tritjunal, New Delhi along with an
- i'. • application for stay ofoperation ofimpugned order. The said appeal has been registered. However, the appeal could not be heard as the
Presiding Officer of Employees' Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal retired on 30.11.2014 and till date no new Presiding Officer has joined.
Learned counsel for respondent appearing on advance notice does not dispute the .fact that there is no Presiding Officer. He, however, submits that the matter relating to appointment ofPresiding
Officer ofEmployees' Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi is under process.
Having considered the facts and circumstances of the present case, it i^ directed that till the application for stay is taken up for hearing by the Employees' Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal, no coercive steps be taken against the petitioner to enforce the order t dated 03.^2.2014. . .
It is expected that the Employees' Provident Fund Appellate
Tribunal shall hear and dispose of the appeal as expeditiously as possible.
The petition and the application stand disposed ofaccordingly.
V '
FEBRUARY 03, 2015
JUDGMENT