Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
LPA/1236/2011 3/ 3 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL No. 1236 of 2011
In
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 6286 of 2011
With
CIVIL
APPLICATION No. 8816 of 2011
In
LETTERS
PATENT APPEAL No. 1236 of 2011
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
=========================================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2
To
be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
=========================================================
NAVAL
TECHNOPLAST INDUSTRIES LIMITED - Appellant(s)
Versus
EMPLOYEES
PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION - THROUGH PROVIDENT - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR
BR GUPTA for
Appellant(s) : 1, MR VIVEK B GUPTA for Appellant(s) : 1,
RULE
SERVED for Respondent(s) : 1,
MS E.SHAILAJA for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE V. M. SAHAI
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI
Date
: 04/10/2011
ORAL
JUDGMENT
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI)
Admit.
Ms. E. Shailaja learned counsel waives service on behalf of the
respondents. With the consent of learned counsel for both the sides,
the matter is taken up for final hearing.
1. This
intra-Court Letters Patent Appeal has been filed against the order
dated 26.07.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil
Application No.6286 of 2011 whereby, the learned Single Judge
dismissed the writ petition with cost of Rs.35,000/-.
2. We
have heard Mr. BR Gupta learned counsel for the appellant and Ms. E.
Shailaja learned counsel for the respondents. The main contention
raised by the appellant is that inquiry proceedings u/s.7-A of the
E.P.F. Act is sought to be initiated against the appellant, without
considering the objections tendered by the employees of the
Contractors and also ignoring the fact that the concerned workmen
have withdrawn their complaints. Therefore, no cause of action
survives.
3. Having
gone through the record, we find that the authority concerned has so
far not come to any conclusion in connection with the impugned
inquiry purportedly initiated u/s.7-A of the said Act. Therefore, it
would not be appropriate for us to interfere with the inquiry
proceedings at this stage. However, so far as the order passed by the
learned Single Judge is concerned, we find that the observations made
therein regarding the conduct of the learned counsel on record, who
appeared for the appellant in the writ petition, are unwarranted and
therefore, the same are expunged.
4. In
view of the above, the appeal is allowed to the extent that the order
passed by the learned Single Judge dated 26.07.2011 in Special Civil
Application No.6286 of 2011 is quashed and set aside. The
respondent-authority may proceed with the impugned inquiry
purportedly initiated u/s.7A of the said Act, only after considering
the submissions / objections that shall be raised by the workmen. The
appeal stands disposed of accordingly. Direct service permitted.
Consequently, the civil application also stands disposed of.
[V.
M. SAHAI, J.]
[K.
S. JHAVERI, J.]
Pravin/*
Top