Dismissed

The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner v. M/S Mangaluru City Corporation

Karnataka HC4 Sept 2024WP/1022/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed the writ petition filed by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner challenging a CGIT order that reduced the deposited amount. The Court held that though the issue of waiving administrative charges was significant, the reduction amount was meager and thus entertained the petition on writ.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; question of law kept open.

The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner Vs… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:36200-DB WP No. 1022 of 2021

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K WRIT PETITION NO. 1022 OF 2021 (L-PF)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAVAN, SILVA ROAD, MANGALURU - 575 002, REP. BY ITS ASST. PF COMMISSIONER. (BY SMT. NALINI VENKATESH, ADVOCATE)

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed M/S MANGALURU CITY CORPORATION, by K G RENUKAMBA LALBAGH, Location: High MANGALURU - 575 003, Court of REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER. Karnataka …RESPONDENT (RESPONDENT IS SERVED)

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER QUASHING THAT PORTION OF THE ORDER DATED 11.08.2020 IN EPF/ITB/98/2017 PASSED BY THE HON. C.G.IT. BANGALORE VIDE ANNEXURE - A, TO THE EXTENT OF THE ORDER THAT INSTEAD OF RS. 31,57,951/- THE RESPONDENT HEREIN SHALL DEPOSIT RS. 30,21,079/-., AND ETC.

¶15

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:36200-DB WP No. 1022 of 2021

¶16

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶17

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO AND

¶18

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

¶19

ORAL ORDER

¶20

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V KAMESWAR RAO)

¶21

The present petition has been filed by the petitionerRegional Provident Fund Commissioner, Mangalore challenging the order passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court (‘CGIT’ for short) in EPF No.98/2017, whereby the CGIT, in terms of the impugned order dated 27.07.2015, modified the order passed by the petitioner imposing damages thereby reducing the amount to Rs.30,21,079/- from Rs.31,57,951/-.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly states that though the amount reduced is approximately above Rs.1,00,000/-, as an important issue arises for consideration in as much as whether the CGIT could have waived the administrative charges, this Court should decide the issue as it has a larger repercussion.

¶23

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:36200-DB WP No. 1022 of 2021

¶24

Though, the submission made by the learned counsel

¶25

for the petitioner is appealing, keeping in view the amount reduced is meager, we are not inclined to entertain the present petition, but keep the question of law which arises for consideration in the petition “open” to be decided in some other case.

¶26

The petition is dismissed .

¶27

Sd/(V KAMESWAR RAO) JUDGE

¶28

Sd/(RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE

¶29

¶30

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28

The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner v. M/S Mangaluru City Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner v. M/S Mangaluru City Corporation

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

Smt. Dayavathi Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr. Subramani Vs Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Limited (Bescom)

Centre Fore Development of Advanced Computing (Formerly National Centre for Software Technology) Vs Mrs. Ragini Bhartari

Sri Prakash R Kurchagi Vs the Commissioner

C. Kumaravelu Vs Union of India

Sri. Sanjay Babu N.C. Vs the State of Karnataka