{"id":220385,"date":"2003-02-25T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2003-02-24T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/camtex-mill-nalloor-rep-by-its-vs-the-assist-provident-fund-on-25-february-2003"},"modified":"2017-06-18T22:15:51","modified_gmt":"2017-06-18T16:45:51","slug":"camtex-mill-nalloor-rep-by-its-vs-the-assist-provident-fund-on-25-february-2003","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/camtex-mill-nalloor-rep-by-its-vs-the-assist-provident-fund-on-25-february-2003","title":{"rendered":"Camtex Mill Nalloor, Rep. By Its … vs The Assist Provident Fund … on 25 February, 2003"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Camtex Mill Nalloor, Rep. By Its … vs The Assist Provident Fund … on 25 February, 2003<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: (2003) IILLJ 509 Mad<\/div>\n
Author: E Padmanabhan<\/div>\n
Bench: E Padmanabhan<\/div>\n<\/p>\n
<\/pre>\n
ORDER<\/p>\n
 E. Padmanabhan, J.<\/p>\n
 1.  M\/s. Camtex Mill, the petitioner in W.P.No:18519 of 1997 has prayed for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus  calling  for the records of the respondent relating to the proceedings TN\/II\/33154\/Enf.1(5)\/97 dated 9.6.197 quash the said order and direct the respondent to give proper opportunity before passing any order  under Sec. 7A of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act  either about the applicability of the Act or about the determination of  Contribution and pass such further orders.\n<\/p>\n
  2. The very same petitioner in W.P.No: 18520 of 1997 prayed for  the relief of  certiorarified mandamus calling for the records of the respondent relating to the  proceedings TN\/II\/33157\/Enf.1(5)\/KK-II\/97 dated 13.10.1997 quash the said order and direct the respondent  to give proper opportunity before passing an order under Sec. 7A of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act either about the applicability of the Act or about the determination of  Contribution and pass such further orders.\n<\/p>\n
  3. Heard Mr. S. Ravindran, learned counsel appearing  for the petitioner in both the  writ petitions and Mr. V. Vibhishanan, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent in both the writ petitions. With the consent of counsel for either side, the writ petitions are taken up for final disposal.\n<\/p>\n
  4. Mr. V. Vibhishanan, learned counsel for the respondents  contended that the petitioner   has  the remedy of appeal before the Appellate Tribunal in terms of Section 7-I of  the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act  and this court is not persuaded to accept the same as no purpose will be served in preferring  an appeal in that proceedings of adjudication being ex parte and the proceedings being non speaking. Even if an appeal is preferred the appellate authority will not have  materials before him to decide the points in issue.  That apart, the writ petitions are pending since 1997 for nearly five years. Therefore, this court  will not be justified in directing the petitioner to invoke  remedy of appeal at this point of time. Hence  the objection raised by Mr. V. Vibhishanan cannot be countenanced.\n<\/p>\n
  5. Extension of coverage notice was issued on 26.2.1997 by the respondent covering the petitioner’s establishment.  An enquiry under Section 7A of the Act was  conducted to determine the coverage, dues and to decide the applicability of the  Act. The petitioner raised objections  contending that the petitioner  establishment is not covered by the provisions of the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. On 3.6.1997. The petitioner’s representative ;and Advocate appeared before the respondent and produced  documents to establish that the establishment was started on 11.4.1992. The petitioner also contended  that it has  engaged less than 20 workmen in all at  all point of time. The respondent adjourned the enquiry to 9.6.1999 for further evidence.\n<\/p>\n
  6. It is the case of the petitioner that on 7.6.1997 itself the petitioner’s counsel sought for a short accommodation as he could not appear on 9.6.1997 as he hasto appear at Trichirappali. Such a  request was handed over to the  respondent on 7.6.1997.  Without reference to the  said request, the respondent proceeded further with the matter on 9.6.1997, determined the date of applicability of the Act on the  establishment of the petitioner and also arrived at the  dues payable by the petitioner with effect from  May 1997. Challenging  the said ex parte proceedings, the first writ petition has been filed.  The petitioner also  moved the respondent to set aside the ex parte  proceedings dated 9.6.1997 assigning valid reasons for non appearance and also drawing  the attention of the  respondent to the  earlier request submitted on 7.6.1997 for adjournment. Such application to set aside the ex parte  proceedings is maintainable under section 7A(4) of the Act and the petitioner assigned valid reason namely its Advocate has  to go to Trichirappalli on 9.6.1997   besides pointing out that  a request has been submitted on 7.6.1997. The respondent rejected the said application  to set aside the ex parte proceedings by order dated 13.10.1997. Being aggrieved, the  petitioner has  filed W.P. No. 18520 of 1997.\n<\/p>\n
  7. Mr. Ravindran,  learned counsel for the petitioner  persuasively and  with all earnestness  contended that  the petitioner has been denied of valuable opportunity to place materials and to take  part in the proceedings. The non appearance   on the date of hearing was beyond the control and  that in fact  a request has been made in advance on 7.6.1997 to postpone the hearing scheduled on 9.6.1997. But without reference to the request for adjournment, ex parte adjudication has been passed. Without considering the  bona fides, genuineness and sufficient reasons shown in the application to set aside the ex parte proceedings, the respondent has  summarily rejected the application. It is contended that the respondent has acted arbitrarily and has failed  to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it.\n<\/p>\n
  8. A perusal of the impugned order in W.P.NO: 18519 of 197 would show that  on 9.6.1997 itself ex parte orders has been passed. Concedingly the petitioner  has produced  some materials at least on 3.7.1997 and ha taken part in the proceedings. But the  said material has not been referred to, nor the respondent has adverted to the material evidence produced on 3.6.1997.\n<\/p>\n
  9. Further, on 7.6.1997 itself, in advance, the petitioner  sought for postponement of the hearing scheduled on 9.6.1997 assigning valid reasons. Without reference to  that orders have been passed.  Before the respondent, also, no material, much less acceptable material was available. Yet, an adverse order has been passed despite  the petitioner’s request for short accommodation. On mere  surmises and adverse inferences, the proceedings dated 9.6.1997 has been passed. It is an arbitrary exercise. If the respondent  had accommodated the petitioner at least for one more hearing, in respect  of which, a request has been made in advance for postponement, the respondent would have collected the very materials and  on that basis  could have passed a speaking order.\n<\/p>\n
  10. Having  mentioned  that evidence was produced  on 3.6.197, there is no discussion at all, nor the materials produced has been adverted to. Merely stating that  in public interest the respondent has proceeded ex parte, the respondent has acted with undue haste. Had one more opportunity been given as the petitioner’s Advocate has to be away at a different place, at least on terms, the present situation could have been avoided by the respondent. Quasi judicial authority  should also act reasonably, fairly and should not act with undue haste and arbitrariness. When a request  has been made well in advance  for adjournment assigning reasons, the respondent should have in fairness accommodated the petitioner by granting short adjournment.  Therefore the proceedings impugned in W.P.No: 18519 of 1997 cannot be sustained as it is an arbitrary exercise of power which is in violation of Art. 14 of The Constitution.\n<\/p>\n
  11. Taking up W.P. No. 18520 of 1997, the order impugned dated 13.10.1997 it proceeds  as if no sufficient cause has been shown for  non appearance on 9.6.1997. The respondent has not even adverted to the request  made by the petitioner on 7.6.1997 to postpone the hearing scheduled on 9.6.1997. by postponing the matter  by few more days, the respondent could have avoided further delay. When a request has been made for adjournment on the ground that the  Advocate  who has already appeared had to be away, in fairness, the respondent should have considered the request  and adjourned the matter at least  for few days.\n<\/p>\n
  12. Further, the impugned proceeding dated 13.10.1997 proceeds as if  no request for adjournment has been made on 7.6.1997. But the request was made in advance  and it has also reached the hands of the respondent. Yet, the respondent had proceeded as if  there has been no  request and that no sufficient cause for non appearance has been shown for the enquiry  on 9.6.1997. This approach of the  respondent cannot be  sustained at all. Hence the impugned proceedings dated 13.6.1997 is also  cannot be sustained.\n<\/p>\n
  13. The petitioner has asserted that it has complied with the interim direction for remitting Rs.59,000\/= as per the order dated 11.12.1997. To render substantial justice  and to afford a reasonable opportunity  at the initial stage of adjudication or assessment, while adding that the respondent should have acted  reasonably and fairly, this court holds  that both the impugned  proceedings  challenged in both the writ petitions are  quashed.\n<\/p>\n
  14. In the result,   writ petition  No.  18519 of 1997 is allowed and the matter is remitted back to the respondent for de novo consideration after affording  an opportunity. As the proceedings dated 9.6.1997 is quashed  and the matter is remitted back to the respondent for de novo consideration  after affording an opportunity, it is not necessary to allow W.P.No: 18520 of 1997 as the petitioner has only challenged the refusal to set aside the ex parte proceedings. Consequently, connected WP and WMPs are closed. No costs.\n<\/p>\n
  15. The sum of Rs.59,000\/= already remitted or further amount, if any remitted shall be kept by the respondent  in separate deposit till final orders are passed and the respondent shall keep the said sum until the proceedings reach finality.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Camtex Mill Nalloor, Rep. By Its … vs The Assist Provident Fund … on 25 February, 2003 Equivalent citations: (2003) IILLJ 509 Mad Author: E Padmanabhan Bench: E Padmanabhan ORDER E. Padmanabhan, J. 1. M\/s. Camtex Mill, the petitioner in W.P.No:18519 of 1997 has prayed for the issue of a writ of […]<\/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":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-220385","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nCamtex Mill Nalloor, Rep. By Its ... vs The Assist Provident Fund ... on 25 February, 2003 - 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\/camtex-mill-nalloor-rep-by-its-vs-the-assist-provident-fund-on-25-february-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Camtex Mill Nalloor, Rep. By Its ... vs The Assist Provident Fund ... on 25 February, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/camtex-mill-nalloor-rep-by-its-vs-the-assist-provident-fund-on-25-february-2003\" \/>\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=\"2003-02-24T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-06-18T16:45:51+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/camtex-mill-nalloor-rep-by-its-vs-the-assist-provident-fund-on-25-february-2003#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/camtex-mill-nalloor-rep-by-its-vs-the-assist-provident-fund-on-25-february-2003\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Camtex Mill Nalloor, Rep. By Its … vs The Assist Provident Fund … on 25 February, 2003\",\"datePublished\":\"2003-02-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-18T16:45:51+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/camtex-mill-nalloor-rep-by-its-vs-the-assist-provident-fund-on-25-february-2003\"},\"wordCount\":1503,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/camtex-mill-nalloor-rep-by-its-vs-the-assist-provident-fund-on-25-february-2003#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/camtex-mill-nalloor-rep-by-its-vs-the-assist-provident-fund-on-25-february-2003\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/camtex-mill-nalloor-rep-by-its-vs-the-assist-provident-fund-on-25-february-2003\",\"name\":\"Camtex Mill Nalloor, Rep. By Its ... vs The Assist Provident Fund ... on 25 February, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2003-02-24T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-06-18T16:45:51+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/camtex-mill-nalloor-rep-by-its-vs-the-assist-provident-fund-on-25-february-2003#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/camtex-mill-nalloor-rep-by-its-vs-the-assist-provident-fund-on-25-february-2003\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/camtex-mill-nalloor-rep-by-its-vs-the-assist-provident-fund-on-25-february-2003#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Camtex Mill Nalloor, Rep. By Its … vs The Assist Provident Fund … on 25 February, 2003\"}]},{\"@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":"Camtex Mill Nalloor, Rep. By Its ... vs The Assist Provident Fund ... on 25 February, 2003 - 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\/camtex-mill-nalloor-rep-by-its-vs-the-assist-provident-fund-on-25-february-2003","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Camtex Mill Nalloor, Rep. By Its ... vs The Assist Provident Fund ... on 25 February, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/camtex-mill-nalloor-rep-by-its-vs-the-assist-provident-fund-on-25-february-2003","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2003-02-24T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-06-18T16:45:51+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/camtex-mill-nalloor-rep-by-its-vs-the-assist-provident-fund-on-25-february-2003#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/camtex-mill-nalloor-rep-by-its-vs-the-assist-provident-fund-on-25-february-2003"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Camtex Mill Nalloor, Rep. By Its … vs The Assist Provident Fund … on 25 February, 2003","datePublished":"2003-02-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-18T16:45:51+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/camtex-mill-nalloor-rep-by-its-vs-the-assist-provident-fund-on-25-february-2003"},"wordCount":1503,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/camtex-mill-nalloor-rep-by-its-vs-the-assist-provident-fund-on-25-february-2003#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/camtex-mill-nalloor-rep-by-its-vs-the-assist-provident-fund-on-25-february-2003","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/camtex-mill-nalloor-rep-by-its-vs-the-assist-provident-fund-on-25-february-2003","name":"Camtex Mill Nalloor, Rep. By Its ... vs The Assist Provident Fund ... on 25 February, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2003-02-24T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-06-18T16:45:51+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/camtex-mill-nalloor-rep-by-its-vs-the-assist-provident-fund-on-25-february-2003#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/camtex-mill-nalloor-rep-by-its-vs-the-assist-provident-fund-on-25-february-2003"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/camtex-mill-nalloor-rep-by-its-vs-the-assist-provident-fund-on-25-february-2003#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Camtex Mill Nalloor, Rep. By Its … vs The Assist Provident Fund … on 25 February, 2003"}]},{"@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\/220385","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=220385"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/220385\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=220385"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=220385"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=220385"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}