Gujarat High Court High Court

=========================================Appearance vs Unknown on 6 April, 2011

Gujarat High Court
=========================================Appearance vs Unknown on 6 April, 2011
Author: V. M. G.B.Shah,&Nbsp;
   Gujarat High Court Case Information System 

  
  
    

 
 
    	      
         
	    
		   Print
				          

  


	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	 
	


 


	 

LPA/590/2011	 2/ 2	ORDER 
 

	

 

IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
 

 


 

LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL No. 590 of 2011
 

In


 

SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 2839 of 2011
 

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

GUJARAT
STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION 

 

Versus
 

REGIONAL
PROVIDENT FUND COMMISSIONER AND ANOTHER 

 

=========================================Appearance
: 
MR GM JOSHI
for the Appellant
=========================================
 
	  
	 
	  
		 
			 

CORAM
			: 
			
		
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI
		
	
	 
		 
		 
			 

and
		
	
	 
		 
		 
			 

HONOURABLE
			MR.JUSTICE G.B.SHAH
		
	

 

 
 


 

Date
: 06/04/2011 

 

ORAL
ORDER

(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI)

1. We have
heard learned counsel Mr. G.M. Joshi for the appellant.

2. Intra-court
this Letters Patent Appeal has been filed challenging judgment dated
15.3.2011 passed in Special Civil Application No.2839 of 2011, by
which the writ petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed on
the ground of availability of statutory alternative remedy under the
provisions of the Provident Fund Act.

3. The
learned counsel for the appellant has urged that he has applied for
waiver before the Central Board of Trustees under second proviso of
Section 14-B of the P.F. Act. This second proviso applies to SICK
Industrial Unit and not to the appellant who has not yet been
declared as ‘SICK’. Therefore, the application filed by the appellant
before the Central Board of Trustees is not maintainable.

4. The
Hon’ble Apex Court time in number has said that, ‘when there is
statutory remedy available, High Court should not exercise its
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India’.

5. For the
aforesaid reasons, we do not find any illegality in the order passed
by the learned Single Judge. This appeal fails and is according
dismissed.

(V.M.

SAHAI, J.)

(G.B.

SHAH, J.)

omkar

   

Top