This court held that the writ petition challenging a summon under Para-26B of the Employees Provident Funds Scheme, 1952 is not maintainable because the Regional Commissioner had not yet taken a final decision on the issue.
The writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable at the present stage.
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.
W.P.(C) No.3799 of 2010
6.8.2015 Summon under Para-26B of the Employees Provident Funds Scheme,
1952 has been challenged in this writ petition.
Para-26B of the scheme provides that if any question arises whether an
employee is entitled or required to become or continue as a member, or as regards the date fr
om which he is so entitled or required to become a member, the decision, thereon of the Region
al Commissioner shall be final.
Provided that no decision shall be given unless both the employer and
the employee have been heard.
It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that no fi
nal decision has yet been taken although he has approached before the authority.
In view thereof, the writ petition is not maintainable at this stage s
ince the authority yet to decide the issue.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable at this stage.
S.N.Prasad, J.2
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a writ petition challenging a summon under Para-26B of the Employees Provident Funds Scheme, 1952 is maintainable when the Regional Commissioner has not yet taken a final decision.
W.P.(C) No.3799 of 2010 Petitioner
S.N. Prasad
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court