The High Court of Kerala heard a writ petition challenging orders from the EPFO and APPEAL Tribunal. The court observed that the core relief sought was against an order dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal, which was not under challenge herein. Consequently, the court held nothing could be done in 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 B.P.RAY
TUESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2013/16TH MAGHA 1934
WP(C).No. 25492 of 2005 (I) ---------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
RESPONDENT(S):
WPC 25492/2005
KAMA PLACE, NEW DELHI 110 066, REPRESENTED BY CENTRAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER.
R,R3 TO 5 BY ADV. SRI.S.GOPAKUMARAN NAIR, SC, P.F. R,R1 BY ADV. SRI.ROJO JOSEPH THURUTHIPARA, CGC R BY SRI.JOHN VARGHESE, ASSISTANT SG
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05-02-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
B.P.RAY, J
WP(C)No.25492 of 2005
......................................... Dated 5th February, 2013
JUDGMENT
Heard. Petitioners have filed this writ petition with the
following prayers.
“i) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records leading to Exts.P4 and P7 and quash/set aside the same;
ii)issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents 2 and 3 to accept Ext.P1 request and issue appropriate notification under Section 1(4) of the Act forthwith;
iii)direct the 1st respondent to consider Ext.P8 and issue appropriate orders for granting the request made as per Ext.P1 forthwith;
iv) issue such other and further reliefs as this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case; and
v) award costs to the petitioners.
Wpc 25492/2005
2
petitioners have filed an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal bearing No.ATA 317(7) of 2000, the same prayer was considered by the Tribunal and by Ext.P7 order, it was dismissed, which is not under challenge. In that view of the matter, nothing can be done in this case. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed.
B.P.RAY, JUDGE
lgk
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can proceed with the writ petition given the dismissed appeal at the Appellate Tribunal.
Whether to grant the relief of quashing records under Exts.P4 and P7.
Whether to direct Respondents 2 and 3 to issue a notification under Section 1(4) of the Act.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Anthony Francis & Son
Union of India
Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal
Employees Provident Fund Organisation
Central Provident Fund Commissioner
Regional Provident Fund Commissioner
B.P. RAY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
