Dismissed

M/s Manikanta Lorry Transport, v. The Singareni Collieries Company Limited, Rep.

Telangana HC11 Dec 2012WP/38041/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bench disposed of the writ petition by relying on a prior single-judge judgment. Directions were issued for issuing a notice to determine if the petitioner's activity constitutes a coal mine before deductions for provident fund can commence.

What did the court decide?

Directions to issue notice to determine coal mine status before deductions; suspended jurisdiction to deduct or utilize amounts until outcome.

M/s Manikanta Lorry Transport, Vs The… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.38041 of 2012

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

When the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent-Company that the subject matter of the Writ Petition is squarely covered by the common judgment rendered by a learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.11107 of 2009 and batch, dated 30.03.2011.

¶4

In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and following the ratio laid down in the above referred judgment, the Writ Petition is, accordingly, disposed of, with the following directions;

¶5

a) T h e 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 to submit explanation;

¶6

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;

¶7

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

¶8

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

¶9

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

¶10

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.

¶11

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶12

________________________ JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY

¶13

11^th December 2012 DR

M/s Manikanta Lorry Transport, v. The Singareni Collieries Company Limited, Rep.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s Manikanta Lorry Transport, v. The Singareni Collieries Company Limited, Rep.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Palukuri Venkata Surya Bangarraju, Vs The Joint Collector ( Civil Supplies)

Godavarthi Satyanarayana Vs The Collector and District Magistrate

Smt.P.Sasi Lakshmi Vs The District Collector (Cs)

G.Sudhakar Reddy Vs The Singareni Collieries Company Limited, Rep. by its

Sri G. Sharan Kumar, Vs The Collector (Cs)

M/s. American Organics (India) Company Vs The Commissioner 8s Director of Agriculture