Disposed

Force Motors Ltd. v. the Employees Provident Fund Organization and Ors.

Bombay HC3 Mar 2015WP/125/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, Force Motors Ltd. challenged a decision declaring it non-exempt under the Provident Fund Act. The High Court directed the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner to consider the petitioner's additional material, decide the issue via a reasoned order within two months, and refused immediate operation to previous adverse findings.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of. Commissioner to decide exemption issue within two months based on material placed by petitioner.

Force Motors Ltd. Vs the Employees Provident… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

wp125.15.sxw

¶2

1/3

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 125 OF 2015

¶5

Force Motors Ltd. ... Petitioners V/s. Employees Provident Fund Organization and ors. ... Respondents

¶6

Mr. Sudhir Talsania, Sr. Counsel, Mr. Vishal Talsania, Counsel, Mr. Sagar Sheth, Counsel, Mr. Sanjay Udeshi and Ms. Radha Ved, advocates i/b. Sanjay Udeshi & co. for the petitioner.

¶7

Mr. Suresh Kumar for respondents.

¶8

CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL AND A.S. GADKARI, JJ .

¶9

3^rd March, 2015.

¶10

P.C.

¶11

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

¶12

The learned Senior Counsel submits that the petitioner company was an exempted establishment earlier named as Bajaj Tempo Pvt. Ltd. The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Pune had granted a certificate on 20^th January, 1998 in favour of Bajaj Tempo Pvt. Ltd. stating that it was an exempted establishment under Section 17(i) of the Employees Provident Fund & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as P.F. Act, 1952 for short). The exemption

¶13

2/3 wp125.15.sxw

¶14

number was mentioned as MH/ PUN/5354. The Learned Counsel further submits that by the impugned communication dated 16^th December, 2014 the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner had in fact reached conclusion that the petitioners were not a exempted establishment.

¶15

The Counsel appearing for respondents- Regional Provident Fund Commissioner submits that petitioners are free to place necessary material before the concerned authority for determination as to whether the petitioners were an exempted establishment. The issue is not concluded and is open for the petitioners to place required material before the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner.

¶16

We observe that the petitioner may place before the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner available material in support of the submission, that petitioners were an exempted establishment under Section 17(i) of the P.F. Act, 1952. The Provident Fund Commissioner thereafter shall pass a brief reasoned order to decide as to whether the petitioners were an exempted establishment. All issues on merits are kept open. The authority shall complete the exercise within two months.

¶17

The observations made in the communication dated 16^th December, 2014 saying that the petitioner establishment cannot be deemed to be an exempted establishment, would not be operative in view of aforementioned directions. We do not express any opinion on merits of the matter.

¶18

With aforesaid observations and directions, Writ Petition is

wp125.15.sxw

3/3

disposed of.

All concerned to act on an authenticated copy of the order.

¶23

(A.S. GADKARI, J.) (NARESH H. PATIL, J.)

¶24

L.S. Panjwani, P.S.

Force Motors Ltd. v. the Employees Provident Fund Organization and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Force Motors Ltd. v. the Employees Provident Fund Organization and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri. Purushottam Ramraje Jagtap and Anr. Vs Maharashtra State Co-Operative Election Tribunal and Anr.

Shri. Satish Shivajirao Kakade Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Principal Secretary and Ors.

Bibishan Ganpati Burgute Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Egs and Water Conservation and Ors.

Shri Daji Krishna Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Chief Secretary and Ors.

Shri Daji Krishna Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Chief Secretary and Ors.

Pankaj R. Patel Vs the Administrator, Union Territory of Daman and Diu and Ors.