Disposed

Ms Shanti Udyog through Its Authorized Representative Daulat Sablok v. Union of India through Secretary Ministry of Labour and Employment and Ors.

Jharkhand HC8 Jan 2020WPC/2932/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed writ petition regarding MPF matters. Court found alternative remedy exists under the Act. Petition disposed with liberty to seek review.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed with liberty to petitioner to file review under Section 7-B of Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952.

Ms Shanti Udyog through Its Authorized… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No.2932 of 2015

¶2

--------

¶3

M/s Shanti Udyog, through its authorized Representative Daulat Sablok, Son of Late Ram Saran Das Sablok, having its office at B-22 & 24, 1^st Phase, Adityapur, Industrial Area, P.O. & P.S.- Adityapur, District- SeraikelaKharsawan

¶4

…… Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Union of India, through Secretary, Ministry of Labour and Employment, New Delhi

¶7

Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Purlia Road, P.O. & P.S.- Mango, Town Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum

¶8

Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Purlia Road, P.O. & P.S.-Mango, Town Jamshedpur, East Singhbhum

¶9

…… Respondents

¶10

------- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

¶11

------For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Sr. Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. P.S. Pati, Advocate ----------------------------

¶12

06 / Dated 08^th January, 2020

¶13

After some argument Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that this writ petition may be disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to avail the remedy by way of filing the review before the competent authority under the Employees’ Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952.

¶14

Mr. P.S. Pati, learned counsel for the respondent-provident fund is present. He submits that the liberty may not be provided to the petitioner.

¶15

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that alternative remedy already provided under the said Act, 1952 and in that view of the matter this Court is not inclined to interfere in this writ petition.

¶16

The petitioner is directed to avail the remedy of review under Section 7-B of the Act, 1952.

¶17

If the question of any limitation will arise, the authority will consider about the pendency of the writ petition before this Court.

¶18

Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of with the above liberty.

¶19

(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

¶20

Madhav/-

Ms Shanti Udyog through Its Authorized Representative Daulat Sablok v. Union of India through Secretary Ministry of Labour and Employment and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Shanti Udyog through Its Authorized Representative Daulat Sablok v. Union of India through Secretary Ministry of Labour and Employment 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

Shankar Sharma Vs Mostt Nirmala Devi

Manoj Das Vs Nagendra Pathak

The Divisional Manager the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Girish Chandra Das and Ors.

Kamlakant Prasad Sinha and Anr. Vs Smt Manibala and Ors.

Manorama Devi Vs the Territory Manager Retail Bpcl and Ors.

Gopal Ram Agarwal Vs the Union of India and Ors.