IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C) No. 5852 of 2011
Tata Cummins Ltd. ...... Petitioner
Versus
Regional Provident Fund
Commissioner, East Singhbhum & ors. ...... Respondents
--------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D.N.PATEL
--------
For the petitioner: Mr. V.P.Singh, Sr.Advocate
--------
th
Order No. 2: Dated 11 October, 2011
Per D.N.Patel, J.
1. Notice upon the respondents to be served by direct/personal service.
2. It appears that previously also W.P.(C) No. 5273 of 2003 and W.P.(C)
No. 6509 of 2005 were heard together and the following orders were
passed:
“1. Rule.
2. Counsel for respondents waives notice of Rule.
3. Interim orders earlier granted in both these writ petitions
shall remain operative during the pendency and final
hearing of these writ petitions.”
3. The earlier petitions were also preferred because the applications for
getting exemption under Section 17(1) of the Employee’s Provident
Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 were preferred before the
Provident Fund Commissioner, who refused to grant exemption and the
said orders are under challenge before this Court, in which the aforesaid
order has been passed.
4. Thus, the writ petitions were admitted and the order was passed not to
take any coercive action against the writ petitioners. This has not been
appreciated by the Presiding Officer, Employees’ Provident Fund
Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi and the order has been passed on 17th
August, 2011 in A.T.A. No. 920(3) of 2005. Paragraph no.8 of the
aforesaid order reads as under:
“8. The record reveals that the appellant filed a WPC No.
5293/2003 and 6509/2005, where the Hon’ble High Court
ordered not to take any coercive steps but the proceeding of
tribunal was not stayed by the Hon’ble Court. No other
reason has been cited for the delay.”
5. I, therefore, stay the operation, implementation and execution of an
order, passed by the Presiding Officer, Employees’ Provident Fund
2.
Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi dated 17th August, 2011 in A.T.A. No.
920(3) of 2005, which is at Annexure 11 to the memo of petition, till the
next date of hearing.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also tendered photo copy of a
letter of the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Jamshedpur dated
26th September, 2011, issued under Section 8(F) of the Employee’s
Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952, which is kept
on record. From perusal of the said letter it appears that an order has
been issued to the petitioner to make payment of Rs.2,13,08,695/-. This
order is also stayed till the next date of hearing.
7. Notice is made returnable on 8th November, 2011.
( D.N. Patel, J. )
A.K.Verma/