Disposed

Sadanand Dharamraj Phansekar v. Central Board of Trustees, Employees Provident Fund and Anr.

Bombay HC21 Jun 2018WP/2105/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition regarding unpaid provident fund dues. The court directed the competent authority to adjudicate the claim within six months after resubmission by the petitioner, adhering to Section 7A(b) of the EPF Act.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed with liberty to resubmit claim; authority to decide within six months.

Sadanand Dharamraj Phansekar Vs Central Board… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

Megha 903_wp_2105_2017.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.2105 OF 2017

¶4

Sadanand Dharamraj Phansekar …Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Central Board of Trustees and Anr. ...Respondents

¶7

Mr. P.M. Patel for the Petitioner.

¶8

Ms Mohinee Chougule i/b. Mr. Suresh Kumar for the Respondent No.1.

¶9

CORAM : RANJIT MORE AND

¶10

SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, JJ.

¶11

DATED: 21^st JUNE, 2018

¶12

P.C.:-

¶13

Heard the learned counsels for the respective parties.

¶14

According to the Petitioner his claim for provident fund dues made before Respondent No.1, which is an authority established under Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (referred to hereinafter for the sake of brevity as 'PF') in form 19, has been rejected in part. An amount of Rs.5,55,918/- was paid on or about 12.02.2015. The claim of employees share and employer's share on back wages is not decided on merits as yet.

¶15

The learned counsel for the Respondent No.1 submits that

¶16

Megha

¶17

1/2

¶18

Megha 903_wp_2105_2017.doc

¶19

some amount due to the Petitioner has already been paid. However, some amount is still unpaid, which needs adjudication.

¶20

The learned counsel for the Respondent No.2 submits that they have deposited sum of Rs.1,02,579/- on or about 03.01.2018 towards employers share and nothing is due and payable as back wages were paid without any deductions.

¶21

Thus, we find that the Petitioner's claim needs to be adjudicated by the competent authority keeping in view the provisins under Section 7A(b) of the 'PF' Act.

¶22

In the circumstances, we dispose of the present petition with liberty to the Petitioner to resubmit the claim before the competent authority of Respondent No.1. On receipt of the said claim, the competent authority shall consider and decide the same in accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner and Respondent No.2. The order shall be passed within six months of the receipt of the representation by the authority.

¶23

The petition is disposed of in above terms.

¶24

(SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.) (RANJIT MORE, J.)

¶25

Megha

¶26

2/2

Sadanand Dharamraj Phansekar v. Central Board of Trustees, Employees Provident Fund and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sadanand Dharamraj Phansekar v. Central Board of Trustees, Employees Provident Fund and Anr.

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

Prince Thomas T. Nadar Vs Dy. Chief Officer and Competent Authority and 4 Ors.

Ravindra L. Pande Vs Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority and and

Lalit Timothy D'Souza Vs Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority and Ors.

Tata Communications Ltd. and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Kacharu Babasaheb Shaikh (Dagadfode) Vs Deputy Conservator of Forest Solapur and Ors.

Lt Col S. D. Singh IC-54780 K Vs Union of India, through Secretary, Ministry of Defence and Ors.