S.P.Multi Speciality Hospital v. the Employees Provident Fund
Case brief
What is this about?
This judgment considers a writ petition against an EPFO damages order and the subsequent appeal rejection. The Supreme Court Court grants a conditional adjournment, accepting the petitioner's request for a re-hearing on merit if a specific deposit is made.
What did the court decide?
Petitioner permitted to deposit Rs. 1,00,000/- to set aside the Tribunal's order and obtain a fresh hearing within five months; failure causes order to become final.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN
MONDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 16TH KARTHIKA, 1944
WP(C) NO. 8435 OF 2011
PETITIONER:
S.P.MULTI SPECIALITY HOSPITAL (P) LIMITED P.O.JUNCTION, PARASSALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS ADMINISTRATOR.
BY ADV SRI.B.MOHANLAL
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND TRIBUNAL (MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT), CORE-2, 4TH FLOOR, SCOPE MINAR, LAKSHMI NAGAR DISTRICT CENTRE, DELHI-110 092. 2 THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, REGIONAL OFFICE, BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-4. 3 THE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION, REGIONAL OFFICE, BHAVISHYANIDHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-4. BY ADVS. NITA.N.S. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN SR.
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Tribunal, after admitting that it considered the petitioner's submissions, could be directed to reconsider the order on appeal after providing the petitioner an opportunity to lead further
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
S.P.MULTI SPECIALITY HOSPITAL (P) LIMITED
- respondent
THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND TRIBUNAL
- respondent
THE ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER
- respondent
THE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court