Partly allowed

Bhartiya Sindhu Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit, Akola Thr. Manager, Vimlesh Shyamsunder Pande v. Regional Provident Funds Commissioner-Ii, Akola and Ors.

Bombay HC7 May 2024WP/1748/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court partly allowed a writ petition challenging an EPFO order obtained without deciding pending witness summons and agent notice applications. The court quashed the order and remanded the matter for fresh proceedings after addressing procedural lapses and hearing the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is partly allowed; impugned order dated 04.03.2024 is quashed and set aside; matter remanded to respondent No.1.

Bhartiya Sindhu Sahakari Pat Sanstha… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

71.wp.1748.odt

¶2

¶3

2024:BHC-NAG:5507

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.1748 OF 2024

¶6

Bhartiya Sindhu Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit Akola, through its Manager, Shri Vimlesh Shyamsunder Pande .Vs. Regional Provident Funds Commissioner-II, Akola, Tq. And Dist. Akola and others

¶7

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's order

¶8

Court's or Judge's Order

¶9

Shri Vidit Lohiya, Adv. h/f Shri D.R. Khapre, Adv. for petitioner. Shri H.N. Verma, Advocate for respondent No.1. Ms M.P. Munshi, Advocate for respondent No.3.

¶10

CORAM : ANIL S. KILOR, J. DATED : 07/05/2024

¶11

The challenge raised in this petition is to the order dated 04.03.2024 passed by the Employees Provident Fund Organization, Akola under section 7-A of the Employees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1952”), on the ground that, before passing the final order, application for issuance of summons to the witnesses and the application for issuance of notice to the pigmy agents were not decided though it was pending before the respondent No.1. Furthermore, it is submitted that no hearing was granted and the cross-examination was not permitted.

¶12

The petition is opposed by the learned counsel for the respondents on the ground that, cross-examination was permitted however, the learned counsel for the

¶13

C.L. Dhakate

¶14

2 71.wp.1748.odt

¶15

respondents fairly admits that the application for issuance of summons to the witnesses was not decided before passing the impugned order.

¶16

In that view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the matter needs to be remanded back to the respondent No.1 for deciding the same afresh after deciding the application for issuance of summons to the witnesses and the application for issuance of notice to the pigmy agents and after hearing the petitioner.

¶17

As far as the objection as regards the crossexamination which according to the petitioner, was permitted by providing questionnaire, the respondent No.1 may consider the said objection as regards crossexamination before deciding the matter afresh. Accordingly, I pass the following order :

¶18

i) The writ petition is partly allowed.

¶19

ii) The impugned order dated 04.03.2024 passed by the respondent No.1 is hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the respondent No.1 on the above referred terms.

¶20

C.L. Dhakate

¶21

3 71.wp.1748.odt

¶22

iii) The petitioner is directed to appear before the respondent No.1 on 20.05.2024 at 12.00 noon thereupon, the respondent No.1 may decide the application for issuance of summons and the application for issuance of notice to the pigmy agents and the proceeding under Section 7-A of the Act of 1952, within two months therefrom.

¶23

Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.

¶24

JUDGE

¶25

C.L. Dhakate

Bhartiya Sindhu Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit, Akola Thr. Manager, Vimlesh Shyamsunder Pande v. Regional Provident Funds Commissioner-Ii, Akola and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhartiya Sindhu Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit, Akola Thr. Manager, Vimlesh Shyamsunder Pande v. Regional Provident Funds Commissioner-Ii, Akola 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

Gurmukhsingh S/O Awantsingh Bashin and Others Vs Additional Commissioner, Nagpur and Others

Noor Jahan Begum Hamid Khan, Secretary, Indira Gandhi Urdu Education Society, Lonar, Buldhana Vs Assistant Charity Commissioner, Buldhana

Shaikh Maheboob Shaikh Ahmed President- Indira Gandhi Urdu Education Society, Lonar Buldhana Vs Assistant Charity Commissioner, Buldhana

Sadulla Khan Abdulla Khan Vs Additional Commissioner, Amravati Division, Amravati and Others

The Akola Janta Commercial Co-Op. Bank Ltd., Thr. Chief Executive Officer, Vilaschandra B. Agrawal Vs Regional Provident Funds Commissioner-Ii, Akola and Others

Jaideo Narayan Chiwande Vs Chairman, Women Complaint Redressal Committee, Maha. Housing and Reg. Devpt. Auth., Mumbai and Ors.