Petitioner failed to appear before the High Court despite previous indulgence and interim stay. The Court held no further orders were necessary and dismissed the writ petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
THURSDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2012/17TH KARTHIKA 1934
WP(C).No. 26748 of 2008 (H)
PETITIONER:
BETHEL CASHEW COMPANY, PAZHANGALAM, NALLILA, NEDUMPARA, KOLLAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER, D.GHEEVARGHESE.
BY ADVS.SRI.S.D.ASOKAN, SRI.ANIL NARAYANAN.
RESPONDENTS:
1. THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, OLD MUNICIPAL OFFICE BUILDING, CHINNAKKADA, KOLLAM- 691 001.
2. EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR
3. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYEMENT, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI.
R1 BY SMT.T.N.GIRIJA, S.C, R3 BY SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,A.S.G.I, SMT.G.KRISHNA KUMARI, C.G.C.
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08-11-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Prv.
W.P.(C). NO.26748/2008-H:
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE ORDER NO.KR/16162/KLM/PD/EM. NS/08 DTD. 04/07/2008. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 01/07/2008. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE APPEAL BEFORE THE R.2.
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL.
//TRUE COPY//
P.S. TO JUDGE
Prv.
A.M.SHAFFIQUE, J.
---------------------------------------------------W.P.(C) No. 26748 of 2008 - H
--------------------------------------------------Dated this the 8th day of November, 2012
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner complains of the proceedings under S. 7Q and 14B of the Employees Provident and Miscellaneous Act. In fact, while admitting the writ petition, this Court had already indicated that in respect of damages under S.14B, the petitioner has to seek the remedies of filing the appeal which was pending. In respect of the demand there was a stay of recovery pursuant to Ext.P1, on condition that the petitioner pays 1/3rd of the damages under S.14B and the same would be till disposal of Ext.P3 appeal. On an earlier occasion also when this case was taken up for hearing there was no appearance for petitioner. Today also there is no appearance for petitioner.
Considering the fact that sufficient indulgence have been shown by this Court by passing the interim order, I do not think that any further orders are required to be passed in the case. Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed.
A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE.
rka
2 issues framed by the court
Whether any further relief is required in a writ petition filed under S. 7Q and 14B of the Employees Provident and Miscellaneous Provisions Act where the petitioner has failed to appear despite previo
Whether damages under S. 14B should be pursued via appeal as indicated by the Court.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Bethel Cashew Company
The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner
Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal
Union of India
A.M. Shaffique
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
