Dismissed

M/s. Brave Men Security Services Pvt., Ltd. v. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (Enforcement)

Telangana HC2 Nov 2012WA/1361/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ appeal against an order granting liberty to approach the appropriate forum under Section 7A(4). Court found no illegality in the lower order and extended the existing two-week deadline for depositing security by a further four weeks.

What did the court decide?

The time limit of two weeks for depositing Rs.2,50,000 was extended by four more weeks.

M/s. Brave Men Security Services Pvt… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR

¶2

WRIT APPEAL NO.1361 OF 2012

¶3

Dt: 02-11-2012.

¶4

Between:

¶5

M/S.BRAVE MEN SECURITY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED PLOT NO.14, SAVARKAR NAGAR, NACHARAM X ROAD, R.R.DISTRICT REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR I.JAGAN MOHAN RAO .. APPELLANT

¶6

AND ASSISTANT PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER (ENFORCEMENT) EMPLOYMENT PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION MINISTRY OF LABOUR, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA 3.4.763, BARKATPURA, HYDERABAD .. RESPONDENT

¶7

HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR

¶8

WRIT APPEAL NO.1361 OF 2012

¶9

JUDGMENT: (Per THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE)

¶10

This writ appeal is directed against an order dated 8^th September, 2012 passed by the Hon’ble single Judge in W.P.No.29029 of 2012, which was filed by the writ petitioner praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the orders dated 7.12.2011 of the respondent-Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (Enforcement), Hyderabad under Section 7-A of Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (for short ‘the Act’) as arbitrary, illegal, capricious and violative of rights guaranteed to the petitioner under Article 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently to direct the respondent to follow the due procedure of law in determining the liability of the petitioner under the provisions of Act.

¶11

The Hon’ble single Judge, after hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, disposed of the writ petition giving liberty to the writ petitioner to apply before the appropriate forum under Section 7A(4) of the Act within a period of two weeks from date and that the respondents to treat such application as within the period of limitation and consider the same independently on its own merits. His Lordship further directed that on the petitioner depositing an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- within a period of two weeks from date the impugned order shall not be enforced.

¶12

Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record.

¶13

It appears the Hon’ble single Judge in view of the remedy available

¶14

under Section 7A(4) and 7B of the Act to the writ petitioner has not entertained the writ petition and rightly disposed of the writ petition directing the petitioner to avail the said remedy within a period of two weeks and also granted stay of the operation of impugned order for a period of two weeks subject to the petitioner depositing an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- with the respondents.

¶15

We do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order so passed by the Hon’ble single Judge. We cannot therefore pass any order, at this stage, except extending the time of two weeks for depositing the amount of Rs.2,50,000/- as directed by the Hon’ble single Judge, by four more weeks from date.

¶16

This writ petition is disposed of on the above terms.

¶17

( PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, ACJ )

¶18

( VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR,

¶19

J )

¶20

Dt: 02-11-2012.

¶21

TNB

M/s. Brave Men Security Services Pvt., Ltd. v. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (Enforcement)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Brave Men Security Services Pvt., Ltd. v. Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner (Enforcement)

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

Saleem Bin Obaid Karban Vs The Regional Passport Officer

Bellapu Nageswar Rao Vs The Govt.of a.P., rep.by its Principal Secretary

Kandula Ramachandra Rao Vs Vijayawada Municipal Corporation

Mohammed Ameen Kachi, Vs The District Collector

S.Veerabhadraiah, Vs Registrar of Co.operative Societies, Andhra Pradesh

Pacific Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Rep. by its Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its