{"id":102022,"date":"2011-07-13T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-07-12T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-shiv-herbal-research-vs-the-assistant-provident-fund-on-13-july-2011"},"modified":"2018-09-28T23:58:53","modified_gmt":"2018-09-28T18:28:53","slug":"ms-shiv-herbal-research-vs-the-assistant-provident-fund-on-13-july-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-shiv-herbal-research-vs-the-assistant-provident-fund-on-13-july-2011","title":{"rendered":"M\/S Shiv Herbal Research … vs The Assistant Provident Fund on 13 July, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
M\/S Shiv Herbal Research … vs The Assistant Provident Fund on 13 July, 2011<\/div>\n
Bench: R. M. Savant<\/div>\n
     wp1245.11.odt                                                 1\n\n            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n                      NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                         \n                        WRIT PETITION NO.1245 OF 2011.\n\n\n\n\n                                                                 \n     PETITIONER:              M\/s Shiv Herbal Research Laboratory \n                              Ltd.,  registered office at S-19, MIDC \n                              Hingna Road, Nagpur through its \n\n\n\n\n                                                                \n                              Managing Director.\n\n                                                  ...VERSUS...\n\n\n\n\n                                               \n     RESPONDENTS:    1. The Assistant Provident Fund \n                        Commissioner,  Office at Regional \n                          \n                        Provident Fund Commissioner,  SRO, \n                        132-A, Ridge Road, Tukdoji Square, \n                        Raghuji Nagar, Nagpur.\n                         \n                                  2.  The Employees Provident Fund Appellate \n                                      Tribunal,  Ministry of Labour and \n                                      Employment, Core-II, 4th Floor, Laxmi \n      \n\n\n                                      Nagar, Distt.Center, Laxmi Nagar, \n                                      New Delhi.\n   \n\n\n\n     =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-\n     Mr. S.V.Manohar, Advocate for the petitioner.\n     Mr. R.S.Sundaram, Advocate for the resp.no.1.\n\n\n\n\n\n     =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-\n                                                    \n                                                     CORAM :  R.M.SAVANT, J.\n<\/pre>\n
                                                     DATED  :  13th July,  2011.\n<\/p>\n
     ORAL JUDGMENT :\n<\/p>\n
     1.              Rule,   with   the   consent   of   the   parties,   made <\/p>\n
     returnable forthwith and heard.\n<\/p>\n
     2.              The above petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of <\/p>\n
                                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:29:55 :::<\/span>
\n      wp1245.11.odt                                                 2<\/span><\/p>\n
     the   Constitution   of   India   takes   exception   to   the   order   dated <\/p>\n
     18\/2\/2011   passed   by   the   Employees   Provident   Fund   Appellate <\/p>\n
     Tribunal, by which order the Appeal filed by the petitioner came to <\/p>\n
     be dismissed and resultantly the order passed under Section 7-A and <\/p>\n
     14B   of   the   Employees’   Provident   Funds   and   Miscellaneous <\/p>\n
     Provisions Act, 1952 came to be confirmed.\n<\/p>\n
     3.              Shorn of unnecessary details, a few facts can be stated <\/p>\n
     thus –\n<\/p>\n
                     The petitioner was held to be accessible by virtue of the <\/p>\n
     order dated 17\/8\/200 passed under Section 7-A of the Employees’ <\/p>\n
     Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952.   By the <\/p>\n
     said order, the petitioner was also asked to make a remittances for <\/p>\n
     the period 1\/3\/1998 to 31\/7\/2000.   The petitioner also received <\/p>\n
     the show cause notice to show cause as to why damages and penal <\/p>\n
     interest under Section 14B and 7-Q of the said Act should not be <\/p>\n
     imposed.  It is the case of the petitioner that without affording any <\/p>\n
     opportunity an order came to be passed against the petitioner on <\/p>\n
     11\/12\/2003   imposing   penalty   and   damages.     It   is   against   the <\/p>\n
     aforesaid   orders   that   the   petitioner   filed   an   Appeal   which   was <\/p>\n
     numbered   as   ATA   No.103\/9\/2007   before   the   Tribunal.     The <\/p>\n
     petitioner   deposited   25%   of   the   amount   in   terms   of   the   order <\/p>\n
     passed by the Apex Court in the Special Leave Petition filed by the <\/p>\n
                                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:29:55 :::<\/span>
\n      wp1245.11.odt                                                  3<\/span><\/p>\n
     petitioner against the direction issued by this court for deposit of <\/p>\n
     50% of the amount.\n<\/p>\n
     4.              In so far as the Appeal is concerned, the petitioner came <\/p>\n
     to be intimated vide notice issued by the respondent no.2 that the <\/p>\n
     Appeal   would   be   taken   up   for   hearing   on   17\/2\/2011.     The <\/p>\n
     petitioner was represented by its counsel Shri S.S.Ghate, who was <\/p>\n
     also   appearing   for   some   other   Appellant   Companies   before   the <\/p>\n
     Tribunal   on   the   said   date.     It   appears   that   on   the   said   day   i.e. <\/p>\n
     17\/2\/2011 since the file of the Tribunal relating to the petitioner <\/p>\n
     was not traceable, the matter was adjourned to 18\/2\/2011.     On <\/p>\n
     18\/2\/2011, the matter was not on daily board and therefore the <\/p>\n
     petitioner’s counsel made a mention to the learned Registrar of the <\/p>\n
     Tribunal, who informed the petitioner’s counsel that the file is not <\/p>\n
     traceable.  Since some other Appeal of the petitioner’s counsel was <\/p>\n
     adjourned to 25\/3\/2011, the Appeal filed by the petitioner was also <\/p>\n
     adjourned   to   25\/3\/2011.     Accordingly,     on   the   daily   board   the <\/p>\n
     matter   was   shown   to   have   been   adjourned   to   25\/3\/2011.     The <\/p>\n
     petitioner thereafter was shocked and surprised to receive an order <\/p>\n
     dated   18\/2\/2011   of   the   Tribunal   wherein   the   absence   of   the <\/p>\n
     petitioner’s   counsel   has   been   noted   and   the   Appeal   has   been <\/p>\n
     resultantly decided in the absence of the counsel by the impugned <\/p>\n
     judgment   and   order   of   the   Employees   Provident   Fund   Appellate <\/p>\n
                                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:29:55 :::<\/span>
\n      wp1245.11.odt                                                  4<\/span><\/p>\n
     Tribunal dated 18\/2\/2011.\n<\/p>\n
     5.              It would be apposite to reproduce the averements made <\/p>\n
     in paragraph 15 of the above petition.\n<\/p>\n
                      15.  That accordingly on 17\/2\/2011 the petitioner
\n                      along with its counsel was present in the matter.
\n                      It   is   most   respectfully   submitted   that   on <\/p>\n
                      17\/2\/2011, the petitioner appeared in the matter
\n                      and it was found that the file of the Tribunal was <\/p>\n
                      not traced, therefore, the matter was adjourned to
\n                      next day i.e. on 18\/2\/2011.   On 18\/2\/2011, the <\/p>\n
                      petitioner   was   present   along   with   its   counsel,
\n                      however, matter was not finding place on the daily
\n                      board.  The counsel for the petitioner appeared in <\/p>\n
                      other matters as listed on board.  It is respectfully <\/p>\n
                      submitted   that   after   the   regular   board   was   over
\n                      the   counsel   for   petitioner   has   mentioned   about <\/p>\n
                      hearing of the present Appeal as it was adjourned
\n                      from   17\/2\/2011   to   18\/2\/2011.     The   Hon’ble
\n                      Presiding Officer was pleased to direct the learned
\n                      Registrar to call out the matter for final hearing, to <\/p>\n
                      which the Registrar of the learned respondent no.2
\n                      has specifically stated that the file is not traceable,
\n                      therefore,   it   is   not   available.     Therefore,   since
\n                      other   matters   of   the   counsel   for   petitioner   were
\n                      already   adjourned   to   25\/3\/2011,   therefore,   the
\n                      present Appeal was also adjourned to 25\/3\/2011,
\n                      therefore,   the   present   Appeal   was   adjourned   to <\/p>\n
                                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:29:55 :::<\/span>
\n      wp1245.11.odt                                                   5<\/span><\/p>\n
                      25\/3\/2011.  Accordingly, the matter was taken on
\n                      board and it was shown to have been adjourned to <\/p>\n
                      25\/3\/2011   on   the   cause   list   maintained   by   the
\n                      Registrar of the respondent no.2.   Therefore, the <\/p>\n
                      petitioner   and   its   counsel   has   noted   the   date   of
\n                      25\/3\/2011 and left the camp premises where the
\n                      hearing of the Tribunal was held.\n<\/p>\n
     6.              In reply filed by the respondent no.1 thereto, it is stated <\/p>\n
     thus –\n<\/p>\n
                     “4.     The   contention   of   the   petitioner   that   the <\/p>\n
                     Appellate   Authority   did   not   afford   opportunity   of
\n                     hearing   even   though   it   is   factual   but   does   not
\n                     warrant   any   consideration   of   this   Court.     It   is <\/p>\n
                     submitted   that   the   Tribunal   had   its   scheduled <\/p>\n
                     sitting  at Nagpur  on  16th, 17th  and 18th  February,
\n                     2011.   The parties were noticed about the circuit
\n                     sitting.   Circuit sitting of the respondent no.2 was <\/p>\n
                     held   for   the   convenience   of   the   parties   and   the
\n                     respective counsels which they were requesting at
\n                     all times. Hence, as per scheduled sitting the cases <\/p>\n
                     to be listed were duly notified.  The petitioner had
\n                     a   very   well   notice   of   this   fact   that   his   matter   is
\n                     listed   for   final   hearing   on   17th  February,   2011.
\n                     That even  the  daily board of  the  Tribunal clearly
\n                     demonstrates   that   the   case   was   listed   for   final
\n                     hearing   on   17\/2\/2011.         It   is   an   incorrect
\n                     statement made by the petitioner that the case file
\n                     of   the   Tribunal   was   not   available   on   the   date   of <\/p>\n
                                                                   ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:29:55 :::<\/span>
\n      wp1245.11.odt                                                  6<\/span><\/p>\n
                     hearing i.e. 17\/2\/2011.   The petitioner along with
\n                     the counsel for some reason or the other which is <\/p>\n
                     best   known   to   them,   chose   to   remain   absent.     It
\n                     shall not be out of place to submit that appearing <\/p>\n
                     counsel before the Tribunal for the petitioner was
\n                     well   available   in   the   other   matters   before   the
\n                     Tribunal.  The petitioner was not present before the <\/p>\n
                     Tribunal   on   17\/2\/2011.     Thus,   considering   the
\n                     overall   conduct   of   the   petitioner,   the   Tribunal
\n                     rightly chose to proceed under rule 15 of the EPF <\/p>\n
                     Tribunal   Procedure   Rules   which   empowers   it   to <\/p>\n
                     decide the merits on merit considering the facts of
\n                     the   case.     Thus   the   Tribunal   rightly     proceeded <\/p>\n
                     under rule 15 and it considered the merits of the
\n                     case   and   passed   order   which   is   duly   reasoned
\n                     order.         Hence,   the   contention   put   forth   by   the <\/p>\n
                     petitioner vide paragraph no.15 of the writ petition <\/p>\n
                     stands   denied   completely,   and   warrants   no
\n                     consideration,   in   view   of   the   submissions   made
\n                     above.     It   is   submitted   the   petitioner   having <\/p>\n
                     committed defaults in payment of P.F. Contribution
\n                     is   interested   in   litigation   that   too   on   a   flimsy
\n                     grounds of financial hardships is not depositing the <\/p>\n
                     amount as is apparent from the averments made in
\n                     the   petition.     This   fact   if   also   considered,   shall
\n                     demonstrate   the   conduct   of   the   petitioner   in   the
\n                     petition to protract the litigation.  Hence, so called
\n                     absence of the petitioner on 17\/2\/2011 when the
\n                     Tribunal took up the matter is not on account of
\n                     genuine and bona fide reasons rather than it is an
\n                     act   of   protracting   the   litigation   which   has   been <\/p>\n
                                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:29:55 :::<\/span>
\n      wp1245.11.odt                                                    7<\/span><\/p>\n
                     rightly   inferred   by   the   Tribunal   and   accordingly
\n                     proceeded   under   rule   15   of   the   EPF   procedure <\/p>\n
                     rules.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                     Therefore, as can be seen from the reply filed on behalf <\/p>\n
     of the respondent no.1, the denial that the petitioner has not been <\/p>\n
     granted an opportunity is not made with any deal of conviction.\n<\/p>\n
     7.              The  impugned order passed by the Tribunal  has been <\/p>\n
     principally   challenged   by   the   petitioner   on   the   ground   that   the <\/p>\n
     same   has   been   passed   in   violation   of   the   principles   of   natural <\/p>\n
     justice,   as   no   opportunity   was   granted   to   the   petitioner   to <\/p>\n
     prosecute   the   said   Appeal   as   the   petitioner’s   counsel   could   not <\/p>\n
     remain present in view of the fact that an impression was given <\/p>\n
     that the said Appeal was adjourned to 25\/3\/2011.   It is pertinent <\/p>\n
     to note that the learned counsel Shri S.S.Ghate who was appearing <\/p>\n
     for the petitioner in the Tribunal has also filed his personal affidavit <\/p>\n
     stating that the Appeal was adjourned to 25\/3\/2011.  In my view, <\/p>\n
     it   would   be   just   and   proper,   in   the   facts   and   circumstances   as <\/p>\n
     indicated   above,  to   set   aside   the   impugned  order   passed   by  the <\/p>\n
     Tribunal and relegate the Appeal back to the Tribunal for a de novo <\/p>\n
     consideration   by   affording   an   opportunity   to   the   petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
     Hence, the following directions.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:29:55 :::<\/span>
\n      wp1245.11.odt                                               8<\/span><\/p>\n
                     (i) The impugned order dated 18\/2\/2011
\n                     passed by the Employees’ Provident Fund <\/p>\n
                     Appellate Tribunal is hereby quashed and
\n                     set aside and the matter is relegated back <\/p>\n
                     to   the   Tribunal   for   a   de   novo
\n                     consideration.\n<\/p>\n
                     (ii)   The   petitioner   to   appear   before   the
\n                     Tribunal   on   8\/8\/2011   and   the   Tribunal
\n                     thereafter   to   decide   the   Appeal   within <\/p>\n
                     two months of the said date.\n<\/p>\n
                     (iii)     The   Tribunal   to   take   into <\/p>\n
                     consideration the material that would be
\n                     placed   by   the   petitioner   and   pass   a
\n                     reasoned   order   and   record   findings   in <\/p>\n
                     respect of the contentions that would be <\/p>\n
                     raised before it by the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
                            Rule is accordingly made absolute in <\/p>\n
                     the   aforesaid   terms   with   parties   to  bear
\n                     their own costs.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                     JUDGE
\n     chute<\/p>\n
                                                               ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:29:55 :::<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court M\/S Shiv Herbal Research … vs The Assistant Provident Fund on 13 July, 2011 Bench: R. M. Savant wp1245.11.odt 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.1245 OF 2011. PETITIONER: M\/s Shiv Herbal Research Laboratory Ltd., registered office at S-19, MIDC Hingna Road, Nagpur through […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-102022","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nM\/S Shiv Herbal Research ... vs The Assistant Provident Fund on 13 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-shiv-herbal-research-vs-the-assistant-provident-fund-on-13-july-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M\/S Shiv Herbal Research ... vs The Assistant Provident Fund on 13 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-shiv-herbal-research-vs-the-assistant-provident-fund-on-13-july-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-07-12T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-09-28T18:28:53+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-shiv-herbal-research-vs-the-assistant-provident-fund-on-13-july-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-shiv-herbal-research-vs-the-assistant-provident-fund-on-13-july-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M\\\/S Shiv Herbal Research … vs The Assistant Provident Fund on 13 July, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-07-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-28T18:28:53+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-shiv-herbal-research-vs-the-assistant-provident-fund-on-13-july-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1516,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-shiv-herbal-research-vs-the-assistant-provident-fund-on-13-july-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-shiv-herbal-research-vs-the-assistant-provident-fund-on-13-july-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-shiv-herbal-research-vs-the-assistant-provident-fund-on-13-july-2011\",\"name\":\"M\\\/S Shiv Herbal Research ... vs The Assistant Provident Fund on 13 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-07-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-28T18:28:53+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-shiv-herbal-research-vs-the-assistant-provident-fund-on-13-july-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-shiv-herbal-research-vs-the-assistant-provident-fund-on-13-july-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-shiv-herbal-research-vs-the-assistant-provident-fund-on-13-july-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M\\\/S Shiv Herbal Research … vs The Assistant Provident Fund on 13 July, 2011\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"M\/S Shiv Herbal Research ... vs The Assistant Provident Fund on 13 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-shiv-herbal-research-vs-the-assistant-provident-fund-on-13-july-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M\/S Shiv Herbal Research ... vs The Assistant Provident Fund on 13 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-shiv-herbal-research-vs-the-assistant-provident-fund-on-13-july-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-07-12T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-09-28T18:28:53+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-shiv-herbal-research-vs-the-assistant-provident-fund-on-13-july-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-shiv-herbal-research-vs-the-assistant-provident-fund-on-13-july-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M\/S Shiv Herbal Research … vs The Assistant Provident Fund on 13 July, 2011","datePublished":"2011-07-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-28T18:28:53+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-shiv-herbal-research-vs-the-assistant-provident-fund-on-13-july-2011"},"wordCount":1516,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-shiv-herbal-research-vs-the-assistant-provident-fund-on-13-july-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-shiv-herbal-research-vs-the-assistant-provident-fund-on-13-july-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-shiv-herbal-research-vs-the-assistant-provident-fund-on-13-july-2011","name":"M\/S Shiv Herbal Research ... vs The Assistant Provident Fund on 13 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-07-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-28T18:28:53+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-shiv-herbal-research-vs-the-assistant-provident-fund-on-13-july-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-shiv-herbal-research-vs-the-assistant-provident-fund-on-13-july-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-shiv-herbal-research-vs-the-assistant-provident-fund-on-13-july-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M\/S Shiv Herbal Research … vs The Assistant Provident Fund on 13 July, 2011"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/102022","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=102022"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/102022\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=102022"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=102022"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=102022"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}