M/s.Sri Padmavathi Transpsort Co., v. The Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.

Telangana HC10 Oct 2012WP/31671/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the deduction of Coal Mines Provident Fund contributions. It directed the Regional Commissioner to determine if the petitioner's activity falls within the definition of a Coal Mine before imposing deductions.

What did the court decide?

Stayed deductions pending inquiry into definition of Coal Mine; directions issued for enrollment and specific deduction procedures thereafter.

M/s.Sri Padmavathi Transpsort Co., Vs The… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY

¶2

Writ Petition No.31671 of 2012

¶3

Date: October 10, 2012

¶4

Between:

¶5

M/s. Sri Padmavathi Transport Co.

¶6

… Petitioner

¶7

And

¶8

The Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd., and others

¶9

… Respondents

¶10

Order:

¶11

This writ petition is filed with the following prayer: “… to issue a writ, order, or direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents 1 to 3 insofar as insisting for payment of Employees Coal Mines Provident Fund by the petitioner transport company towards contractor’s contribution pursuant to the Work Order No.7600004606 dated 19.06.2012 as well as agreement bond dated 16.08.2012 and the steps taken for deducting the same from the amounts payable to the petitioner towards transportation charges in accordance with the above said work order as well as agreement bond as illegal, arbitrary,

¶12

and contrary to the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948 and the rules made thereunder…”

¶13

Learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsel for Singareni Collieries Company Limited submit that the issue raised in this writ petition is squarely covered by the common order, dated 13.03.2011 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court, in W.P.No.11107 of 2009 and batch.

¶14

In view of the submission of the learned counsel for the parties and following the ratio laid down in the above referred to common order, this Writ Petition is disposed of with the following directions:

¶15

a) The Regional Commissioner or any Officer authorized by him shall first issue a notice to the petitioner to decide whether the activity undertaken by the petitioner comes within the definition of Coal Mine. It shall be open to the petitioner submit explanation;

¶16

b) In the event of the activity being declared as the one in coal mine, the employees shall be enrolled as members, subject to their fulfillment of the prescribed conditions, the respondents shall assign account numbers and issue cards; and the deductions shall be made with reference to the account numbers and cards so issued, periodically;

¶17

c) Till such time, no deductions shall be made, but if it is held that the petitioner is liable, at a later point of

¶18

time, he shall be under obligation to pay the arrears also;

¶19

d) The amount deducted from the petitioner, so far, shall be kept in FDRs and the manner in which it shall be utilized shall be decided, depending upon the outcome of the exercise undertaken above; and

¶20

e) The authority of the Coal Mines Provident Fund shall ensure that it does not deduct any amount, without reference to a particular employee, who is admitted to the provident fund.

¶21

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶22

____________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J

¶23

October 10, 2012 MRR

M/s.Sri Padmavathi Transpsort Co., v. The Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.Sri Padmavathi Transpsort Co., v. The Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.

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

Chitta Vijay Prathap Reddy, Vs The Joint Collector

T.Chinna Sanjeevappa , Sanjeevarayudu, Vs The Govt. of A.P. Rep.by its Pricipal Secretary, Revenue

A.H. Shareef, Vs The District Collector

Gopisetti Lakshminarayana, Vs The Sub-Registrar

Nutakki ljak, Vs The Thahsildar

Chinnakunti Balamma Vs The Government of A.P. Rep.by its