Dismissed

Dr. J. Seetharaman v. Employees Provident Fund Organisaion

Kerala HC3 Jun 2024WP(C)/15728/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Proprietor of a hospital sought to challenge provident fund orders by writ; with counsel's consent the petition was withdrawn so he could pursue statutory appeal under Section 7(7) of the EPF Act. Court granted one month to file appeal without limitation scrutiny, subject to statutory deposit.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to withdraw writ and file statutory appeal under Section 7(7) EPF Act within one month without limitation objection, subject to statutory deposit.

Dr. J. Seetharaman Vs Employees Provident… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH KUMAR SINGH

¶4

MONDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 13TH JYAISHTA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 15728 OF 2014

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

DR. J. SEETHARAMAN
PROPRIETOR, SREE SHANMUGHAVILASOM HOSPITAL, MAIN ROAD,
PUNALUR, KOLLAM-691305.
BY ADV SMT.A.K.PREETHA

¶7

RESPONDENTS:

¶8

1 EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISAION REGIONAL OFFICE, BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY THE REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER, BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004.

¶9

2 REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSION, BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004.

¶10

3 ASSISTANT REGIONAL PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION, BHAVISHYA NIDHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695004. BY ADVS.

¶11

SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN (SR.) NITA N.S

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
03.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶13

W.P.(C) No.15728 OF 2014

¶14

¶15

JUDGMENT

¶16

Dated this the 3^rd day of June, 2024

¶17

After some arguments, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that he would like to withdraw the writ petition and file statutory appeal under Sub Section 7 of Section 7 of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. However, he submits that this Court may condone the delay in filing the appeal as there has been interim order operating in favour of the petitioner all these years.

¶18

Considering the aforesaid prayer, this writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to file appeal against the impugned orders within a period of one month from today. The appeal shall be heard and decided on merits expeditiously, in accordance with the law. Needless to say, if the appeal is filed within a period of one month, the Appellate Tribunal/Authority shall not go into the question of limitation.

¶19

W.P.(C) No.15728 OF 2014

¶20

¶21

The petitioner should make the statutory deposit

¶22

for maintaining the appeal.

¶23

Sd/-

¶24

DINESH KUMAR SINGH JUDGE

¶25

¶26

W.P.(C) No.15728 OF 2014

¶27

¶28

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 15728/2014

¶29

`PETITIONER EXHIB`	`ITS`
`EXHIBIT-P1:`	`TRUE COPY` `RESPONDENT`	`OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 3RD` `DATED 10.1.2007.`
`EXHIBIT-P2:`	`TRUE COPY` `RESPONDENT`	`FO THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 3RD` `DATED 7.03.2007.`
`EXHIBIT-P3:`	`TRUE COPY` `HONOURABLE` `DATED 4.6.2`	`OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS` `COURT IN W.P.(C) 20031/2007` `013.`
`EXHIBIT-P4:`	`TRUE COPY` `7B FILED BY`	`OF THE APPLICATION UNDER SECTION` `THE PETITIONER DATED 25.7.2013.`
`EXHIBIT-P5:`	`TRUE COPY` `THE PETITIO`	`OF THE WRITTEN OBJECTION FILED BY` `NER DATED 27.5.2014.`
`EXHIBIT-P6:`	`TRUE COP` `PETITIONER`	`Y OF THE PETITION FILED BY THE` `DATED 27.5.2014.`
`EXHIBIT-P7:`	`TRUE COPY` `THE PETITIO`	`OF THE PROOF AFFIDAVIT FILED BY` `NER DATED 27.5.2014.`
`EXHIBIT-P8:`	`TRUE COPY` `RESPONDENT`	`OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 2ND` `DATED 10.6.2014.`
`EXHIBIT-P9:`	`TRUE COPY` `10.11.2006.`	`OF THE INSPECTION REPORT DATED`

Dr. J. Seetharaman v. Employees Provident Fund Organisaion

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. J. Seetharaman v. Employees Provident Fund Organisaion

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.Balan Vs the Director, Indian Institute of Spices Research

M.Balakrishnan Vs the State Public Information Officer/Senior Superintendent

M. Balakrishnan Vs the State Public Information Officer/Senior Superintendent

K.C. Santhosh Vs Kerala State Beverages (M and M) Corporation Ltd.

General Manager, Vs Regional Provident Fund Commissioner

Employees Provident Fund Organisation Vs M/S.Kerala State Detergents and Chemicals Ltd. (Ksdc)