M/S Mandya Institute Of Medical ... vs The Assistant Provident Fund ... on 20 June, 2018

[Cites 2, Cited by 1]

Karnataka High Court

M/S Mandya Institute Of Medical ... vs The Assistant Provident Fund ... on 20 June, 2018

Bench: A.S. Bopanna

                               1




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE, 2018

                        BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA

          WRIT PETITION NO.10679/2018 (L-PF)

BETWEEN:

M/s. Mandya Institute of Medical Sciences
Bengaluru - Mysuru Main Road
Mandya - 571 401
Represented by its Director
Dr. G. M. Prakash.
                                            ...Petitioner

(By Sri. T. Thippesh, Advocate for M/s. S.N. Murthy
Associates., Advocate for petitioner)

AND:

1.     The Assistant Provident Fund
       Commissioner
       Employee's Provident Fund Organization
       Bhavishyanidhi Bhavan
       2nd Stage, Gayathripuram
       Mysuru - 570 019.

2.     The Chief Manager
       State Bank of Mysuru
       (State Bank of India)
       Mandya Main Branch
       Mandya District
       Karnataka State.

3.     M/s. Tejaswi Enterprises
       3rd Main Road, Ashoknagar
       Mandya, Mandya - District
       Karnataka State
                             2




      Represented by its proprietor
      Mr. H.M. Yogesh.
                                           ...Respondents

(By Sri. B. Pramod, Advocate for R1
 R3 is served)

     This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and
227 of Constitution of India praying to quash the order
dated 31.01.2018 at Annexure-N passed by the first
respondent;

     This Writ Petition coming on for 'Orders', this day,
the Court made the following:

                         ORDER

Though the petition is listed for orders relating to service, considering that the issue lies in a narrow compass the petition itself is taken for consideration. The petitioner is assailing the orders at Annexures-N and V to the petition.

2. The need for the petitioner to approach this Court had arisen since the petitioner having availed the remedy of appeal under Section 7(I) of the EPF and MP Act, had preferred such appeal before the CGIT which is the appellate authority provided under the Act.

3. In view of the nature of the orders impugned, since the petitioner was also seeking for interim orders and in 3 that light since the same could not be pressed before the CGIT as there is no sitting, the petitioner had approached this Court. This Court while directing notice on 06.03.2018, has granted the interim stay.

4. If that be the position, all that is necessary to be ensured is that the benefit of the interim order should continue in favour of the petitioner till the consideration on that aspect is made by the CGIT or any other forum if alternate arrangement is made for hearing the appeal.

5. If that be the position, there is no need to retain this petition on record. Accordingly, it is ordered that the interim order granted by this Court shall enure to the benefit of the petitioner till the interim prayer before the CGIT in the appeal is considered and orders are passed one way or the other, in accordance with law. The contentions in that regard are left open.

Petition is accordingly, disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE KA/NBM

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court