Full Text
FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA ""' Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sukumar Pattjoshi with Mr. Satyajit Patra,\[r. S.K. DubeY, Advocates
VETSUS
REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMIS SIONER AND ORS ""' ResPondents
Through: Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, Advocate
Patra, Mr. S.K. DubeY, Advocates
FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA ..... Petitioner Patra,Mr. S.K. DubeY, Advocates
-r 2011:DHC:18489 :- Z- VETSUS
Through: IW. Arvind Kumar Sharma, Advocate with w. P. (c) s304l20rr
Through: \zlr. Sukumar Pattjoshi with Mr. Satyajit
?
VETSUS
REGIONAL PROVIDBNT FUND COMMIS SIONER with w. P. (c) s310/2011 Patra,Vlr. S.K. DubeY, Advocates
VETSUS with w. P. (c) s311/2011
Through: Mr. Sukumar Pattjoshi with Mr. Satyajit Patra,\[r. S.K. Dubey, Advocates
VETSUS
Through: IMr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, Advocate 4T
?
JUDGMENT
1) q.F with + 'w. P. (C) 5313/2011 Patra,Vlr. S.K. DubeY, Advocates VETSUS with w. P. (c) 53l4l20ll Patra,Mr. S.K. DubeY, Advocates VETSUS And w. P. (c) s316/2011 Through: Mr. Sukumar Pattjoshi with hzlr. Satyajit + + VETSUS Through: IMr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, Advocate CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR ORDER 28.07.201r CM APPLs 10759 & 10760/2011 in WP(O 5301/2011 62 & 107 011 in WP(C o AP 6s& CM APPLs 10768 & 10769/2011 in WP(O 5304/2011:\./. e! Ls 1077 PPLs I & 1077 w s308/20 10778 & 1 f.inW s3l0l20 cM appr,r rozst c rozszlzort in wp(o srtuzort Cwr Apprs tOzSO & tOZgZlZOtt in Wp(C'l SStrlZOtt CM APPLs 10789 & 10790/20L[1] in WP(O 5314/2011 cvt lppl,s tozga e tozgslzorr itr wp(o sst6lzort 11 i ln ln CM CM F)- Y Exemptions allowed subject to all just exceptions. The applications are disPosed of. cM APPL 107s8/2011 & WP(O s301/2011 cM APPL 10761/2011 & WP(O s302/2011 cM APPL 10764/2011 & WP(O s303/2011 cM APPL 10767/2011 & WP(O s304/2011 cM APPL 10770/2011 & WP(O s306/2011 cM APPL 1077412011 & WP(O s308/2011 cM APPL 1077712011 & WP(O s310/2011 cM APPL 10780/2011 & WP(O s311/2011 cM APPL 1078s/2011 & WP(O s313/2011 cM APPL 10788/2011 & WP(O s314l20L[1] cM APPL 10793/2011 & WP(O s316/2011
1. These writ petitions challenge an order dated 25th April 20lI requiring the - e petitioner to deposit 40% of the demanded amount with the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner ('RPFC') as a condition for its appeal being considered by the Employees' Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal ('Tribunal').
2. Having heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and having perused the records, this Cqurt is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. O l{owever, the amounts when deposited by the Petitioner will be kept by the RPFC in a fixed deposit with a nationalized bank. If the Petitioner succeeds in the appeal, this deposit will be subject to the fuither orders that may be passed by the Tribunal. The time for the Petitioner depositing the amount before the RPFC is extended by eight weeks from today.
3. The petitions and the pending applications are disposed of. Order be given dasti to learned counsel for the Petitioner under signature of the Court C I\tlaster. JULY 28,2oll rk \ 4€ Y? S. MT]RALIDHAR, J