Dismissed

Sai Labour Contractor through Proprietor v. the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Aurangabad and Ors.

Bombay HC2 Aug 2012LPA/65/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An appellate bench dismissed a Letters Patent Appeal filed by a labour contractor challenging an order of the Provident Fund Commissioner, holding that the impugned judgment was disposed of due to available alternate statutory remedies.

What did the court decide?

Letters Patent Appeal disposed of with directions to approach alternate statutory remedies.

Sai Labour Contractor through Proprietor Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

-:(1):-

¶2

LPA65-12

¶3

FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

¶4

OfficeNotes,Office Court's or Judge's orders.
MemorandaofCoram,
appearance,Court's
orders or directions and
Registrar's orders.

¶5

L.P.A. NO.: 65 OF 2012

¶6

Sai Labour Contractor

¶7

Versus

¶8

The Regional Provident Fund Commission,
Aurangabad and others

¶9

***

¶10

Mr. T. K. Prabhakaran, Advocate for the
Petitioner.

¶11

Mr. K. B. Chaudhari, Standing Counsel for
Respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶12

Mr. M. N. Navandar, Advocate for Respondent
No.3.

¶13

***

¶14

CORAM:NARESH H. PATIL &

¶15

S. B. DESHMUKH,JJ.
DATED: 2nd AUGUST, 2012.

¶16

PER COURT:

¶17

1. Heard.

¶18

2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner

¶19

submits that there is inherent lacunae and

¶20

deficiency in the impugned order passed by

¶21

the Provident Fund Commissioner.

¶22

3. We have perused the impugned order

¶23

passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ

¶24

Petition No. 3924 of 2011. The petition

¶25

was disposed of in view of availability of

¶26

-:(2):-

¶27

LPA65-12

¶28

alternate statutory remedy. We are,

¶29

therefore, not inclined to entertain this
Letters Patent Appeal. The Appellant may
resort to alternate remedies as permissible
in law.

¶30

4. All the issues are kept open.

¶31

5.The Letters Patent Appeal is disposed
of accordingly.

¶32

6.In case the Appellant approaches the
AppellateAuthority,theAppellate
Authority would take into consideration
period consumed in circulating this appeal.

¶33

[S.B.DESHMUKH, J.] [NARESH H.PATIL J.]

¶34

Dt.02/08/2012
ans/LPA65-12

Sai Labour Contractor through Proprietor v. the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Aurangabad and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sai Labour Contractor through Proprietor v. the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Aurangabad and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sardar Teerathsingh Deewansingh Major Vs the State of Mah

Gajendra Digambar Lokhande Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Mohd. Habib Mohd. Maulana Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Shivaji Malhari Warkad Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shaikh Yusuf Shaikh Ahmed Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Ashok Chandrabhan Gore and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.