Allowed

M/s.Naihaa Retail Pvt. Ltd. v. The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner

Madras HC2 Nov 2018WP/29102/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus restraining the EPFO respondent from initiating coercive action under an earlier order while the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court remained non-functional due to the non-appointment of a Presiding Officer. The court granted the stay.

What did the court decide?

The respondents are directed not to initiate any coercive action till the Presiding Officer is appointed in the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court and the stay petition is taken u

M/s.Naihaa Retail Pvt. Ltd. Vs The Assistant… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 02.11.2018

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE S.VIMALA

¶5

W.P.NO.29102 of 2018

¶6

M/s.Naihaa Retail Private Limited

¶7

Rep.by its Managing Director Mr.R.Arvind Ramas Aalayam New No.31, Rajabather Street T.Nagar, Chennai - 600 017.

¶8

.... Petitioner

¶9

¶10

The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner Employees' Provident Fund Organization Regional Office, 37, Royapettah High Road Chennai-600 014.

¶11

.... Respondent

¶12

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondent their men, officers, Agents, Servants, Representative or any one claiming through or under them or any other person from proceeding any further in terms of its 14B and 7Q order dated 13.06.2017 in Proceedings No.TN/5784/D25/MAS/TDC/2017 till disposal of appeal filed by the petitioner on the file of the Central Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Appellate authority under the EPF Act, Chennai.

¶13

` For Petitioner : Mr.S.Ezhil Raj For Respondents : Mr.V.Sundareswaran Standing Counsel for EPFO

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

The petitioner herein has filed the writ petition seeking direction to the respondent not to to take coercive proceedings till the Presiding Officer is appointed in the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court.

¶16

It is stated that the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court is not functioning as of now for want of Presiding Officer. It is not disputed that the Presiding Officer is yet to be appointed. On account of the non appointment, the petitioners are not able to prosecute the case before the tribunal. During the interregnum period the respondents are taking some coercive action against the writ

¶17

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶18

petitioner, which is sought to be restrained by filing this writ petition.

¶19

As it is admitted that the Presiding Officer is yet to be appointed in the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, this Court is inclined to consider the relief as such sought for in this writ petition.

¶20

Thus, the respondents are directed not to initiate any coercive action till the Presiding Officer is appointed in the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court and the stay petition is taken up for enquiry. Accordingly, this writ petition stands disposed of. No costs.

¶21

-s/d-

¶22

Assistant Registrar(CS-IV)

¶23

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶24

kst

¶25

¶26

The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner Employees' Provident Fund Organization Regional Office, 37, Royapettah High Road Chennai-600 014.

¶27

+1 CC to Mr.S. Ezhil Raj, Advocate sr 75940.

¶28

W.P.No.29102 of 2018

¶29

KAN(CO) SP(02/11/2018)

¶30

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

M/s.Naihaa Retail Pvt. Ltd. v. The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.Naihaa Retail Pvt. Ltd. v. The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner

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

Tamilnadu State Transport Vs the Presiding Officer

R.Loganathan, Vs The District Collector

V.Panneer Vs the Presiding Officer

Assistant Elementary Vs The Presiding Officer

Mrs.K.Parimala Vs The Deputy commissioner of

R.P.Murugesan Vs The Government of India