Dismissed

Vattipally Raji Reddy v. The Singareni Collieries Company Limited

Telangana HC12 Sept 2019WP/8266/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of two writ petitions on the basis of a precedent, directing the coal mines provident fund authority to issue notices to petitioners to determine if activities qualify as coal mines before enrolling employees and making deductions.

What did the court decide?

Directs authority to issue notice to determine if activity is a coal mine; pending determination, no deductions to be made. Employees to be enrolled with assigned account numbers post-determination.

Vattipally Raji Reddy Vs The Singareni… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2019)

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY

¶2

WRIT PETITION NOs.7929 AND 8266 OF 2019

¶3

COMMON ORDER:

¶4

When the writ petitions are taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 3 submitted that the subject matter in the present writ petitions is squarely covered by a common judgment rendered by a learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.11107 of 2009 and batch, dated 30.03.2011.

¶5

In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for both the parties, and following the ratio laid down in the above referred judgement, the writ petitions are accordingly disposed of, with the following directions:

¶6

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;

¶7

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;

¶8

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, 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

¶10

shall be decided, depending upon the outcome of the exercise undertaken above; and

¶11

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.

¶12

As a sequel thereto, interlocutory applications pending, if any,

¶13

shall stand closed. No order as to costs.

¶14

_______________________________
A.RAJASHEKER REDDY, J
12.09.2019
avs

Vattipally Raji Reddy v. The Singareni Collieries Company Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vattipally Raji Reddy v. The Singareni Collieries Company Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C.H.N. Malleshwara Rao, Vs The Singareni Collieries Company Limited

Vangala Mohan Vs The Singareni Collieries Company Limited

M/S Laxmi Swetha Service Vs The Singareni Collieries Company Limited

M/S Ganesh Road Lines Vs The Singareni Collieries Company Limited

M/s Sn Enviro-Tech Pvt. Ltd. Vs Megha Engineering and Infrastructure Ltd.

Smt. Chitti Nukaratnam Vs The State of Telangana