Gujarat High Court High Court

Union vs Regional on 20 October, 2011

Gujarat High Court
Union vs Regional on 20 October, 2011
Author: Ravi R.Tripathi,
  
 Gujarat High Court Case Information System 
    
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

SCA/11103/2011	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 11103 of 2011
 

 
 
=========================================================

 

UNION
QUALITY PLASTICS PVT LTD - Petitioner(s)
 

Versus
 

REGIONAL
PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER & 2 - Respondent(s)
 

=========================================================
 
Appearance
: 
MR
AS ASTHAVADI for
Petitioner(s) : 1, 
MR NIRAL R MEHTA for Respondent(s) : 1, 
DS
AFF.NOT FILED (N) for Respondent(s) : 2, 
None for Respondent(s) :
3, 
=========================================================


 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 20/10/2011 

 

 
 
ORAL
ORDER

Heard
learned advocate Mr. A.S. Asthavadi for the petitioner.

Learned
advocate for the petitioner invited attention of the Court to order
under challenge passed by the Employees Provident Fund Appellate
Tribunal in ATA No. 10[5] of 2008, relevant part of which reads as
under:-

“Thus
in view of the discussion held above, the order of the authority
cannot be sustained. Hence, ordered, the matter is remanded back to
the PF authority to assess the dues @ 17% {inclusive of interest}.
The appellant is also directed to appear before the PF authority
within one month of receipt of this order. If the appellant fails to
appear the authority may decide the matter as per law. Copy of order
be sent to the parties. File be consigned to record room.”

Learned
advocate for the petitioner argued on assumption that the authorities
will calculate dues @ 17% (inclusive of interest) and it will be
higher than the one at which earlier it was calculated. This
apprehension is on surmises and, therefore, the contention is not
accepted.

At
the request of learned advocate for the petitioner, it is clarified
that in the event, the petitioner is aggrieved by the calculation
undertaken by the authority on its own interpretation of this order,
it will be open for the petitioner to challenge the same in
accordance with law.

With
this observation, the petition is disposed of. Notice is discharged
with no order as to costs.

[RAVI
R. TRIPATHI, J.]

pirzada/-

   

Top