Petitioner complained of deduction of E.P.F. contributions not deposited by respondents. Petitioner sought to withdraw petition after assuring action through opposites.
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. 8979 OF 2016
03. 08.08.2016 The matter concerns with the grievance of the petitioner that
the opposite party no. 3 and 4 having deducted his contribution towards E.P.F. have not deposi
ted the same with the authority with their contribution as required under the statute.
In this connection, he has filed Annexure -2 in support of the said deduction.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he would be moving the matter
before the opposite party no. 1 and 2 for suitable action in accordance with the provision of
the Act and Rules governing the field. So, he seeks to withdraw the writ application with libe
rty to file the same in there arises the need.
In view of the aforesaid, the writ application stands disposed with above obse
rvation.
Narayan
Narayan
Opposite Party No. 3 and 4
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court