Allowed

M/s Chaitanya Residential High School v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal

Telangana HC24 Jan 2023WP/1641/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of the writ petition by modifying the Tribunal's interim order under Section 7(4) of the EPF Act. Instead of depositing 30% of the assessed amount, the petitioner is directed to pay only 20%, with the balance 5% to be deposited within six weeks, considering the petitioner's financial constraints and shutdown of the establishment.

What did the court decide?

Modified the Tribunal's order: Petitioner to deposit 20% of the assessed amount immediately and balance 5% within six weeks; stay of recovery proceedings maintained.

M/s Chaitanya Residential High School Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

I¹¹⁶⁸ I

¶2

I{ICH COUR'I' FOR'I'I{E STAI'E OF TELANCANA AT IIYDT]ItABAI)

¶3

(Spccial Original Jurisdiction)

¶4

TUESDAY. THE TWENTY FOURTII DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND'I'WENTY THREE PRESENT

¶5

TIIE HON'I}LE SRI .IUSTICtr K.LAKSHN{AN WRIT PETITION NO: l(r4l OF 2023

¶6

Betrvccn:

¶7

M/s Chaitanya Residential High School, Door No. l-l l8/10, Opposite Uppal Bus Depot, Bhagya Nagar Colony, HYDERAIIAD- 500 039 Rept.its correspondent S. Narsi Reddy S/o Late S. Venkata Reddy, aged 58 ycars. R/o.Hyderabad

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

r\ND

¶10

l. Central Govemment lndustrial Tribunal, cum Labour Cou( at Manoranjan complex Ist Floor Hytlcrabad.

¶11

Rcgional Provident Fund Cornrnissioner EPFO, Regional Office,3-4-763, BhavishyaN idhiBhavan. Barkatpura, IIYDERABAD- 500 027

¶12

...RESPONDENTS

¶13

Petition under Article 226 of thc Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in thc alfidavit filed therervith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction moro in tlle nature of a mandamus declaring the order passcd under scction 7(0) of thc EPF AND M.P.ACT.l952 in I.A.No.1 OF 2022 IN EpF APPEAL NO. CCIT 2015(17712018) Dt.27llO/2022 of the first respondent it is against the principles of natural justicc and U nconstitutional and consequently setaside the same

¶14

IA NO: I OF 2023

¶15

Petition under Section l5l CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in thc affidavit liled in support of the petition, thc High Court may be pleased to stay all recovery proceedings in respcct of the orilcr passcd by the respondent under section 7A of the EPF nND M.P.ACT.l952 procccdings No.TS/63405/ENF.C.IV/t5/2015t4496 Tiil the disposal of the rnain wril pclilion.

¶16

Counsel for thc Pc(itioncr:

¶17

SRI. Pi\TII, SHANKAR RAO

¶18

Counscl for thc Rcspondcnts No.l: (;ADI PRAVEEN KUNIAR (Dy.

¶19

SOLICI'IOR GENERAL OF INDIA)

¶20

Counscl for the Rcspondents No.2:

¶21

SRI. SURT]NDER REDDY

¶22

The Corrrt made thc follou'ing:

¶23

HO}I'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMIT,Y

¶24

\I@242I,

¶25

ORDER:

¶26

Heard iri P. Shanker Rao Patil, lear lr,rd counsel appearing fo: the petitioner and^{Sri S. SurertrlerReddy,} learned Stanling Counsel appearing for resprlndent^No.2. Perused the^'ecord.

¶27

Petition:r herein had filed an apprr:al under Section 7-I of the Employees' Provident )rund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 bcfore Iimployees' Provident Fund Organizatton, New Delhi, chtrllen;3ing the order dated 3-08-20 15 passed under Section 7-A o[ the Act. The s ne was transferred to Bar galore and thereafter to Hyderabad and at present it is pending before the Ct ntra,l Government Industriai Tril>r.rna1- cum -^{Labour Cortrt -- cum} -^{EPF Tribunal,Hycleritlrarl. Along} with the sair[ appeal., it has also fiIed zrn apprlic,ation to waive or redrLce the condition of depositing 7t){',1, cisputed amount. Vid: order dated 27-lO-2O22 resporrdent No.¹

¶28

)

¶29

Tribunal has granted interim stay on condition of petitioner depositing 3Oo/o of the assessed due amount within four (4) weeks from the date of the said order.

¶30

According to Sri P. Shalker Rao patil. learned counsel petitioner has deposited 1O% of the assessed amount on 25-11-2022 and 10% of the assessed amount on 10-0 1-2023. The petitioner herein is not in a position to deposit balance look. Petitioner had specihcally mentioned the reasons. The aforesaid order is a discretionarlz order and normally this Court will not interfere with the discretionary order passed by respondent No. 1. However, considering the specific grounds raised by the petitioner including the financial problems being faced by the petitioner and closing of establishment long back, this Court is inclined to modify the said order.

¶31

In view of the aforesaid discussion, this writ petition is disposed of modifying the aforesaid order to the extent

¶32

¶33

of petitioner clepositin g 2So/o of the assess.ed ;ajnount instead of 3C%o of the assessed amount. pet.tionr:r shall deposit balarrce 5%o of the assessed amourrt within a period of six (5) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. P< titioner shall also file Calculation Memo to the said effec, with respondent No.1. Failing vrhich tiberty is granted _o respondent No.2 to take steps, in accordance w th law. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶34

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitiorrs, il any, pending in the Writ Petition shall stand closecl.

¶35

SI)/-I'.CH.I IA GA BHI]SHAMBA ASSI!'t {N't REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY/I

iICTI oFI,'ICER

To,

ccntral Go'emn ent Industrial rribunar, cum Labour Cou( at Ir{a.orzLnjan complex lst F loor Hydera rad. 2 $egional^{Providt nt Fund Commissiolgl.Elto,} Regionat Olficr.. l-4_ 763, BhavishyaNidh.i I Ihavan. Barkatpura, HyDEneeAB: iOO OZZ -) une ('('ro SRl. PATIL SHANKAR RAO Advocare lOiUi.l 4 orlgCC to S2. r iADr PRAVEEN ruHaan 1oy. S6Lri.irbn cENERAT_ oF INDIA r Advocar : [OPUCI 5 l wo CD Copie;

Ht(;u coullt'

Kt.,.t

DATED: 2..110112(t23

OIiI)ER

WP.No. 164 I of 202-l

¶45

,. srA
z 16
FEB 20n
[9

¶46

\1/IIIT PE'I'ITION IS DISPOSEI) OF WITIIOUl'COS'[

M/s Chaitanya Residential High School v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s Chaitanya Residential High School v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal

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

M/S. Trr Engineering Collage, Medak Dist. Vs Rpf Commr., Epfo, Hyd. and Ano.

Devavarapu Sulochana Devi Vs The State of Telangana

Smt Chinthapatla Narsamma Vs State of Telangana

N. Anji Reddy Vs State of Telangana and 2 others

Gadda Devamma Vs The State of Telangana

Krishnaiah Gongli Vs The State of Telangana