M/S Veener Mills vs The Assistant Provident Fund … on 23 September, 2010

"I.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA. BAN

DATED THIS THE 23R» DAY 01%' SEPTEMBIEf3'R--.«I..2:Q§III}§_r 

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE  I I I'

WRIT PETITION No..»19_1.4'7I't*)I«"':?.01<:I[:--g_:h.¢,'§;1%_'_j  I
BETWEEN:  I I  I I

M/S. VEENER MILLS _ I _  I .

4061 /1. UDAYAGIRI ExTE::§I'TIOI\:i" 

MYSORE 570019   .,

REPBY ITS DI_REcT_OR:_ I .   

SR1. SIRAJ    I    PETITIONEZR

{BY SR1. M  . '

AND:

 

TIIEEVASSISTAIIT 'PROVIDENT FUND
CO1vIM1SS]ONER;' SIJBREOIONAL

I I  - OFFICI-EXAEMPLOYEES, PROVIDENT FU ND
 »O'ROg\I*\I,Is_AT1VON, REGENCY ROOMS,
'  L<)Im-RAIIIJANIIMIII-IAL ROAD,

MY':3ORE  157110 1 0. . . .RESPONDEN'I'

 TIIISIIRYIQIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226

 22*: OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING To
 QUASIVIIIE ORDER DATED 5.4.1.0 PASSED BY THE EPF'
 _A,PPIi'LLATE TRIBUNAL AT NEW DELHI, DISMISSING THE

  "APPEAL ATA NO. Ei99{6}2002 FILED BY THE PETITIONER

  V' FOR IJEFAULT, VIDE ANN-G; AND ETC.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRLHEARING,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOW/'ING:i)

wk



ORDER

Reserving liberty to the pet._itiQr_1_er t_-1)”fiie::i’ieeeSsa13f’ ”

, Y)

application explaining the Seu_b4f:i:1e”ViA4_.)« “*«;i~.1_”:

Rule 15 of the Employer-se’._LF’~rpvidefit

Tribunal Rules. 199710 reea.11– ‘0»rder’€)’f~disnéEissa1 for

default of the appeal, dviifigly rejected.

‘\ Sd/an