Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
FA/94/1987 3/ 3 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
FIRST
APPEAL No. 94 of 1987
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE MD SHAH
=========================================================
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 ?
=========================================================
BOARD
OF TRUSTEES OF THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND - Appellant(s)
Versus
CENTRAL
AUTOMOBILES - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
KT DAVE for
Appellant(s) : 1,
MR DHARMESH V SHAH for Respondent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE MD SHAH
Date
: 18/08/2010
ORAL
JUDGMENT
This
appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and decree dated
30-9-1986 passed in Civil Suit No.2995 of 1985 by the learned Judge,
City Civil Court No.5, Ahmedabad, by which the suit of the plaintiff
was allowed and suit order at Ex.27 was held to be illegal and
invalid. The defendant and its Officers were permanently restrained
from enforcing and implementing the suit order in any manner against
the plaintiff. It was observed by the trial court that there was no
provision in the Employees’ Provident Fund and Miscellaneous
Provisions Act, 1952, for challenging the order passed by the
competent Officer before any authority or Court and since there was
no remedy available to the party for challenging the order passed by
any authority under this Act, Civil Court has jurisdiction to try
the suit. Said judgment and order is under challenge in this appeal.
It
is submitted by Mr.K.T.Dave that subsequently the Act is amended and
as per Sec.7-I thereof, now the party has remedy to file appeal
against the order passed by any authority under this Act before the
Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal and hence, the matter is
required to be sent to the Tribunal for a decision afresh. Section
7-I is reproduced hereinbelow:
7I.
Appeals to Tribunal.-(1) Any person aggrieved by a notification
issued by the Central Government, or an order passed by the Central
Government or any authority, under the proviso to Sub-section(3), or
sub-section94), of section1, or section3, or sub-section(1) of
section 7-A, or section 7-B[except an order rejecting an application
for review referred to in sub-section(5) thereof], or section 7-C,
or section14-B, may prefer an appeal to a Tribunal against such
notification or order.
In
view of the above, without entering into the merits or demerits of
the matter, judgment and decree dated 30-9-1986 passed in Civil Suit
No.2995 of 1985 by the learned Judge, City Civil Court No.5,
Ahmedabad, is hereby quashed and set aside and the appeal is
accordingly allowed. The Registry is directed to forthwith send the
suit along with its entire records and proceedings to the City Civil
Court and the City Civil Court in turn will forward the same to the
Employees Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal having
its office at Scope Minar, Core II, 4 th
Floor, Laxmi Nagar District Centre, Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi-110 092,
within a week from today. Upon receiving the suit, the learned
Tribunal will number it as an appeal and after giving full
opportunity of hearing to both the parties will decide the appeal in
accordance with law and without being influenced by this judgment as
well as the judgment of the trial court. It is clarified that the
question of limitation will not come in the way while deciding the
appeal by the Tribunal.
(M.D.SHAH,J.)
radhan
Top