Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Central Board Of Trustees vs The Registrar Employees on 7 November, 2016
Author: Subrata Talukdar
Bench: Subrata Talukdar
1
07.11.16
101 Ct. No.29
Sws.M
W.P. 17051(W) of 2016
[Central Board of Trustees vs. The Registrar Employees
Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal & Anr.]
Mr. Aparna Banerjee
....for the petitioner
Mr. Debdatta Sen
Mr. Siddhartha Chatterjee
.....for the respondents
On behalf of the petitioner/Provident Fund Authority (for short PFA), Ms. Aparna Banerjee, learned Counsel appears and challenges the order dated 17th August, 2011 passed by the learned Employees' Provident Fund Appellate Tribunal (for short learned EPFAT) in an appeal filed by the respondent No. 2/Company.
Ms. Banerjee argues that the EPFAT failed to consider the fact that once the respondent No. 2 / Company deposited the PF dues of its excluded employees under paragraph 6 of the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995, the respondent No. 2/Company was under a legal obligation to deposit the pension dues. 2 Appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2/Company, Sri Debdatta Sen, learned Counsel questions the maintainability of this writ petition on the strength of the decision reported in (2014)3 CLJ page 1 on the ground that the Central Board of Trustees of the PFA cannot challenge the order of the learned EPFAT. Sri Sen submits that an opportunity be granted to the respondent No. 2 / Company to place its stand on affidavit.
Having heard the parties and considering the materials placed let Affidavit-in-opposition be filed within a period of six weeks from date, keeping the question of maintainability open. Affidavit-in-reply be filed within three weeks thereafter.
Liberty to mention after the period granted to exchange affidavits is complete.
Steps, if any, taken shall abide by the result of this writ petition.
(Subrata Talukdar, J.)