Disposed

M/s. Lepakshi Transport Co., v. The Singareni Collieries Company Limited

Telangana HC19 Apr 2017WP/13950/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A transport contractor challenged the applicability of the Coal Mines Provident Fund Act. The Court dismissed the petition following a prior decision dated 12.02.2015, directing that the petitioner allow the authorities to ascertain whether their activity qualifies as a coal mine before any deductions are made.

What did the court decide?

Notice issued to the petitioner to decide if the activity falls within the definition of a coal mine to determine applicability of deductions.

M/s. Lepakshi Transport Co., Vs The… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2017)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. SESHA SAI WRIT PETITION No.13950 OF 2017

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

This writ petition is filed contending that the petitioner being a transport contractor, the provisions of the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948, are not applicable.

¶4

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri J.Sreenivasa Rao, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3, who has submitted that the issue involved in this case is squarely covered by the judgment of this Court dated 12.02.2015 in W.P.No.2711 of 2015.

¶5

Hence, following the aforesaid judgment, this Writ Petition is

¶6

disposed of with the following directions:

¶7

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 to submit explanation.

¶8

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 fulfilment 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;

¶9

c) Till such time, no deductions shall be made, but if it is held that the petitioner is liable, at a later point of time, he shall be under obligation to pay the arrears also;

¶10

¶11

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

¶12

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.

¶13

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. No order

¶14

as to costs.

¶15

Registry to attach a copy of judgment, dated 12.02.2015 in

¶16

W.P.No.2711 of 2015.

¶17

__________________
A.V.SESHA SAI, J
APRIL 19, 2017
YVL

¶18

¶19

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. SESHA SAI

¶20

WRIT PETITION No.13950 OF 2017

¶21

Date: 19.04.2017

¶22

YVL

M/s. Lepakshi Transport Co., v. The Singareni Collieries Company Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s. Lepakshi Transport Co., v. The Singareni Collieries Company Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s Sri Maruthi Digital Network Vs The State of Andra Predesh Rep by its Principal

Routhu Simhachalam, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh, Panchayat Raj and Rural

Upputuri Sudhakara Rao, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh.

Sri Venkateswara Fertilizers and Pesticides, Vs State of Telangana

M/s. Lepakshi Transport Co., Rep. by its Managing Partner, Vs The Singareni Collieries Company Limited, Rep. by its

S.Vijaya Kumari, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh