Uniworth Limited v. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner

Chhattisgarh HC14 Mar 2019WPL/246/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court accepted the petitioner's request to withdraw the writ petition alleging non-functionality of the Appellate Tribunal. It granted a 10-day extension for filing appeal, condoning the time spent before the Court, and directed maintenance of status quo pending the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition withdrawn; status quo maintained for 10 days pending appeal; limitation for appeal extension granted.

Uniworth Limited Vs Assistant Provident… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶4

WPL No. 246 of 2017

¶5

Uniworth Limited 923-945 Sector - D, Urla Indsutral Area Post Sarora, District Raipur Chhattisgarh Through Factory Manager, R. Ramesh Kumar, Chhattisgarh

¶6

---Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

_Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner Regional Office Raipur Employees Provident Fund Orgination Block d Scheme 32, Indra Gandhi Vyavasaik Parisar, Pandri District Raipur Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh

¶9

---Respondent

¶10

For petitioner : Shri N.K.Vyas, Advocate. For respondent : Shri Sunil Pillai, Advocate.

¶11

Hon ' ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy

¶12

Order on Board

¶13

14/03/2019

¶14

The present Writ Petition has been filed assailing the order AnnexureP/1 dated 26/10/2017 passed by the Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Regional Office, Raipur under Section 14 (B) of the Employees Provident Fund Act, 1952.

¶15

The Writ Petition was filed before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the ground that, the Appellate Authority under the Act i.e. the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur was not functional on account of there being no regular presiding officer.

¶16

Today on mention the matter was called and the counsel for the petitioner submits that, now a fresh presiding officer has been appointed and

¶17

¶18

he has already assumed charge on 24/02/2019 and since the Appellate Tribunal has become functional, the petitioner be permitted to withdraw the

¶19

Writ Petition and avail the remedy of appeal before the Appellate Authority.

¶20

The said prayer is not opposed by the counsel for the respondent.

¶21

The Writ Petition accordingly stands disposed off as withdrawn.

¶22

At this juncture, the counsel for the petitioner submits that, the presiding officer after assuming the office has proceeded on leave, therefore he be granted atleast 10 days time for preferring an appeal before the Tribunal and he also makes a prayer that till the petitioner files an appeal along with an application for interim relief, the respondent may not initiate any coercive steps against the petitioner.

¶23

There is another request made by the petitioner that, the period of limitation to the extent of the period spent before this Court in the petition under Article 226 be also condoned by the Tribunal while considering the period of limitation in filing of the appeal.

¶24

The counsel for the respondent however submits that, since the Writ Petition is already pending before this Court and there is no interim relief granted by this Court, the interim relief so sought for by the petitioner at this juncture may not be required to be given.

¶25

Having considered the request of the counsel for the petitioner what is relevant to be taken note of is that, the need for filing of Writ Petition arose on account of there being no regular presiding officer available.

¶26

¶27

The petitioner at that point of time if they have sought the shelter from the High Court invoking the extraordinary powers conferred upon this Court under Article 226, for all practical purposes it has to be assumed that the petitioner did avail right of appeal before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶28

Thus, the request of the petitioner for condoning the period spent before the High Court challenging the order dated 26/10/2017 deserves to be and would have be condoned by the respondent in spite of the fact that the Appellate Authority has got power to condone the delay for a period of only 60 days. The Writ Petition before this Court was filed on 23/11/2017. Thus, the period from 23/11/2017 till the date of receipt of copy of this order would not be counted for the purpose of calculating the period of limitation and the petitioner would be entitled for the benefit under Section 14 of the Limitation Act in this regard.

¶29

So far as the interim protection that the petitioner has sought is concerned, since this Court has not had an occasion of hearing the interim application till now, this Court would only pass an order that till the petitioner files an appeal before the authority concerned within a period of 10 days

¶30

from today along with an application for interim relief, let status-quo as it exists today be maintained by the respondent.

¶31

The Writ Petition accordingly stands disposed off.

¶32

Sd/-

¶33

(P. Sam Koshy) JUDGE

¶34

Sumit

Uniworth Limited v. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uniworth Limited v. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanjay Kumar Rajput Vs Prakash Meshram, Chief Executive Officer

Leela Kumari Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Smt. Rajanti Khakha Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Priyanka Agrawal Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Uniworth Textile Limted Vs Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner

Smit Gupta Vs State of Chhattisgarh