Supreme Court - Daily Orders
M/S Tasty Nut Industries vs Union Of India on 2 February, 2015
Bench: Dipak Misra, Prafulla C. Pant
ITEM NO.39 COURT NO.6 SECTION X
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No(s).999/2014
M/S TASTY NUT INDUSTRIES Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS Respondent(s)
(with appln. (s) for directions and office report)
WITH
SLP(C) No. 36370-36372/2014
(With appln.(s) for permission to file SLP and Office Report)
Date : 02/02/2015 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIPAK MISRA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAFULLA C. PANT
For Petitioner(s) Mr. V. Giri, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde, Adv.
Ms. Usha Nandini. V, Adv.
Mr. Biju P. Raman, Adv.
Mr. Nitin, Adv.
Mr. Mohammed Sadique T.A. Adv.,
For Respondent(s) Ms. Aparna Bhat, Adv.
Ms. Tanima Kishore, Adv.
Mr.Ranjit Kumar, SG
Mr. Rana Mukherjee, Adv.
Ms. Binu Tamta, Adv.
Mr. Shrikant N. Terdal, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Signature Not Verified SLP (C) Nos.36370-36372 of 2014 Digitally signed by Gulshan Kumar Arora Date: 2015.02.06 15:30:29 IST Reason: Permission to file special leave petitions is granted.
Heard Mr. Giri, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Ranjit Kumar learned Solicitor General of India 2 for the Union of India. It is submitted by Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned Solicitor General, that the Union of India has taken a decision to establish a Bench of the appellate tribunal under the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and the said decision has been taken by applying the independent mind by the competent authorities of the Union of India. He has referred to Paragraph 20 of the counter affidavit filed by the Union of India which reads as follows :
“20. It is finally submitted that establishment of a separate EPFAT for southern states of India has been directed, keeping in view the interest of the litigants for whom it is highly inconveniet to contest their appeals in Delhi and so that the Tribunal is conveniently physically accessible to litigants across the country It is a huge financial burden for them to come all the way to Delhi to file an appeal. Also, there are cases in which the affected workmen may also like to participate in the proceedings, in addition to the EPFO and it is also not feasible for individual workmen to travel all the way to Delhi to attend a hearing of the provident fund dues.” In view of the aforesaid, we are of the considered opinion, the controversy raised in the special leave petition should be allowed to rest and it is accordingly so ordered.
The special leave petitions stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.WP (C) No.999 of 2014
It is submitted by Mr. Hegde, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the Presiding Officer of the Appellant Tribunal under the Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 at Delhi, after the notification dated 7.11.2014 issued by the Ministry of Labour and Employment, has passed orders till the date of his superannuation, i.e., 30.11.2014 in respect of cases which were to be transferred to Bangalore Bench from the date of publication of the notification,as is evincible from paragraph 4 of the notification and, therefore, the decisions rendered by him should be saved.
Mr. Hegde has also pointed out to this Court that though the notification has been issued on 7.11.2014, the tribunal has not yet been established and the filing of the appeal has to be done within a span of 60 days. In the absence of the tribunal, the litigants are in a perplexed situation what to do about filing of 3 their appeals.
Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned Solicitor General shall obtain instructions on both the counts.
List the matter on 09.03.2015.
(Gulshan Kumar Arora) (H.S. Parasher)
Court Master Court Master